[Idr] Re: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-37: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the clarification John.

@Roman Danyliw<mailto:[e-mail]>, just wanted to note again that your DISCUSS  comment has been incorporated as noted in my previous email (excerpt below).

Please let me know if you have any further questions on the DISCUSS.

Excerpt:
KV> I have moved out 13.4 to a section outside “13. IANA Considerations”? viz. as
KV> “14. Registries maintained by this document”. Hope that clears the confusion.
KV> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-38.html#section-14<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-38.html*section-14__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CgmKfu-KuFWZon9BXWTpA5TPmt6cYl3IPnwF7kzT0LSADSd_dKtn5SRdYoyaw_JYPE8DpwNITchUgdH07MHlcbY7Pk0iOmyi$>

Thanks
Kaliraj


Juniper Business Use Only
From: John Scudder <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 4:22 PM
To: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <[e-mail]>, Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>, Hares Susan <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Balaji Rajagopalan <[e-mail]>, Reshma Das <[e-mail]>, Rajesh M <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-37: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Hi Roman, Kaliraj, all,


On Feb 19, 2025, at 6:59 PM, Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <[e-mail]> wrote:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you to Reese Enghardt for the GENART review.

** As a process check, I was surprised to see that there wasn’t an IETF LC or
telechat review assigned from RTGDIR, OPSDIR, or SECDIR for this document.
KV> Request @Susan Hares<mailto:[e-mail]> or @John Scudder<mailto:[e-mail]> to help answer this.

In RTG although we ask chairs to obtain RTGDIR reviews prior to advancing documents, we don’t routinely do IETF LC reviews. This document has had two RTGDIR reviews, albeit the most recent one was of version 18, more than a year ago. However, I know from having followed its progress that this document is one of the most thoroughly-critiqued ones to come through the WG and indeed, the area, in some time. I have no concerns that it had insufficient RTG eyes on.

Regarding OPSDIR and SECDIR, I can’t speak for those areas. They generally assign their own work, although again, I see there were early reviews from both directorates. Possibly their policy is to review all Standards Track documents but not all documents on other tracks? But I’m just guessing, if you want to know the answer, Roman, you would do better to direct your question to one of the ADs of those areas.

In any case (and this is principally a reassurance to the authors), Roman’s remark is a COMMENT and therefore non-blocking. I appreciate him raising it, just in case something had been missed. At least from a RTG point of view, I’m comfortable.

—John