IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-10.txt (6/4 to 6/18) - WG LC completed, awaiting -12.txt

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Wed, 08 July 2020 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 909B83A00E3 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 10:36:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DFzhvRqvPb0p for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 10:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7241F3A00E0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 10:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1jtDzs-0000tX-8q for idr@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2020 17:36:40 +0000
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 10:36:39 -0700
Message-ID: <m2tuyhykm0.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Interminable Discussion Room <idr@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR0901MB3682A0E599708BDDFD2E2A7B84690@BL0PR0901MB3682.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BL0PR0901MB368202D333455541409DBF2184680@BL0PR0901MB3682.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <BL0PR0901MB3682A0E599708BDDFD2E2A7B84690@BL0PR0901MB3682.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/26.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/281n7cDsGDgq_HCmSaY9N5Scgwg>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-10.txt (6/4 to 6/18) - WG LC completed, awaiting -12.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 17:36:43 -0000

> New text: This document specifies a new configuration option
> BGP Role that is intended to be used with eBGP.
> However, in the future, the applicability of BGP Role
> can be extended to iBGP when suitable internal roles are defined.

how about also mentioning extension to is-is, idrp, and ice cream?

    It's perfectly appropriate to be upset.  I thought of it in a
    slightly different way--like a space that we were exploring and, in
    the early days, we figured out this consistent path through the
    space: IP, TCP, and so on.  What's been happening over the last few
    years is that the IETF is filling the rest of the space with every
    alternative approach, not necessarily any better.  Every possible
    alternative is now being written down.  And it's not useful.
    -- Jon Postel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email