Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt (10/17/2016 to 10/31/2016)

Wesley George <wesgeorge@puck.nether.net> Tue, 18 October 2016 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <wesgeorge@puck.nether.net>
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 52ED91296F9 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.632
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 tznC7dVz5qNu for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [204.42.254.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD5991296F7 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:1998:3400:1d::287] (unknown [IPv6:2001:1998:3400:1d::287]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 516205407E5; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:32:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Wesley George <wesgeorge@puck.nether.net>
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_928BA6A1-8D5A-4425-BA89-596C47C500EC"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:32:37 -0400
Message-Id: <277CCC95-EB94-4213-9AA7-AAFEDF443F20@puck.nether.net>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, IETF IDR WG <idr@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/3gBz3-gDUpxGC0vux3lCdG9V1uw>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt (10/17/2016 to 10/31/2016)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 17:32:43 -0000

I’ve read the draft, I support publication. This is a necessary mechanism for managing BGP in the modern Internet, and IMO long overdue. Thanks to the authors and implementers that have pushed this forward.



Wes George





From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>;
Date: Monday, October 17, 2016 at 4:27 PM
To: 'IETF IDR WG' <idr@ietf.org>;
Subject: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt (10/17/2016 to 10/31/2016)



This begins a 2 week WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt.  (10/17 to 10/31).   Please comment if draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt  is ready for publication.



If you have concerns with the text,  please be very specific about what is wrong and what needs to change.  If you have concerns about operational aspects, please give a complete description of the problem and why this draft does not solve it.



This WG LC is not a place to debate whether we should have adopted this technology.



The focus of WG LC is whether this technology has implementations (see IDR wiki for examples),  and whether these implementation inter-operate.  It is also important to consider deployment issue or problems on currently.



Sue Hares and John Scudder