Re: [Idr] draft-decraene-idr-reserved-extended-communities-00

I have no problem allocating code points and new registries once we have consensus on the draft.

However, I think reversing the process creates a suboptimal situation, wherein we could end up allocating code points and registries for drafts that we then decide to abandon.  This seems like a dangerous precedent.

I would propose that we discuss the draft first.

Tony

On Nov 14, 2010, at 12:36 AM, John Scudder wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> There was a certain lack of clarity during the discussion of draft-decraene-idr-reserved-extended-communities-00 at the wg meeting -- we got sidetracked into a tangential discussion of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut-02 instead.  So instead of simply asking about wg adoption of the draft, I would like to remind people of the request the draft makes, and then ask. 
> 
> Simply put, the draft asks for the following:
> 
> - to allocate a code point from the registry "BGP Extended Communities Type - extended, transitive"
> - to allocate a code point from the registry "BGP Extended Communities Type - extended, non-transitive"
> - to establish a pair of registries for values to be carried in the data portion of extended communities using respectively, either of those two code points. 
> 
> This seems to Sue and me to be a modest and reasonable request to the WG. The debate in our limited Q&A time revolved around the related gshut draft. Much as with other recent drafts, we think the conversation should be divided into two pieces:
> 
> - mechanics, in this case extended community allocation and registry establishment. That is what the draft and this message relate to. 
> - details of related applications. There seems to be a healthy conversation already taking place related to gshut, within GROW and in hallway conversations. 
> 
> The proposal on the table is that the extended community type codes be allocated and the requested registry established. If folks have objections to those specific work items please send them to the list. If adopted, we're basically done by the way -- there is really no further work for the WG, just a little for the chairs.
> 
> In closing I will point out that although draft-decraene-idr-reserved-extended-communities-00 makes its request from the Standards Action portion of the two registries, it need not -- the authors could have requested an FCFS code point instead in which case this discussion would have been moot.  They could still do this.  
> 
> Please send any objections to allocating the type codes and establishing the registry before November 29. If you do object, please provide justification for your position.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --John and Sue 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr