IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] Second Try: draft-jhjm-idr-last-as-reservations as WG document

"Dickson, Brian" <bdickson@verisign.com> Mon, 01 July 2013 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <bdickson@verisign.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBCA411E8241 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 13:37:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B5KgauSYevTB for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 13:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod6og105.obsmtp.com (exprod6og105.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.189]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE19111E8254 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 13:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob105.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUdHogMosX76cnAfUZdoE5zWc15Vqj4M0@postini.com; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 13:37:26 PDT
Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.205]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id r61KbH1F031588 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 1 Jul 2013 16:37:17 -0400
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 16:37:16 -0400
From: "Dickson, Brian" <bdickson@verisign.com>
To: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] Second Try: draft-jhjm-idr-last-as-reservations as WG document
Thread-Index: AQHOdpO4Il71Ro6KSk6ou+xZUNBvuplQSGIA
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 20:37:16 +0000
Message-ID: <CDF7608E.B60C%bdickson@verisign.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B5C8A63-E550-4C49-BE4B-F169A78CF023@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.5.130515
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CDF7608EB60Cbdicksonverisigncom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Idr] Second Try: draft-jhjm-idr-last-as-reservations as WG document
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 20:37:32 -0000

In favor, no brainer.

Brian

From: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net<mailto:jgs@juniper.net>>
Date: Monday, July 1, 2013 3:46 PM
To: "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>>
Subject: [Idr] Second Try: draft-jhjm-idr-last-as-reservations as WG document

Folks,

On May 29 the authors requested WG adoption of draft-jhjm-idr-last-as-reservations-00. There was not much response -- two supportive replies, not counting authors. This is not enough to declare "WG consensus" or much of anything else.

A short summary for those who aren't familiar with the draft: It basically says "the last ASNs are already reserved, please be careful with them". This seems to the chairs to be obviously true and useful to document, but maybe it's SO obvious that WG members are not bothering to say anything. It also seems to us that this doesn't demand much work from the WG and is almost ready for publication as-is -- unless of course we're wrong and there's controversy about the draft.

So let's try this again. Please do reply, by July 8. In particular, if you feel that we are mistaken and the draft is NOT a "no-brainer" for the WG, you should say that because in this specific case, we might make an exception and apply the rule "silence gives consent".

Thanks!

--John and Sue

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email