IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-14

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Fri, 20 October 2017 07:29 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@gmail.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 74ACF13445B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 00:29:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 cNzU4XSSgntu for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 00:29:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com (mail-wm0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87ED81321A4 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 00:29:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id q124so20035058wmb.0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 00:29:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=OTeXhnt7lITPO6mEkcRZlJCwUsX4xPrl+rq2loxMjUQ=; b=Hufb+lKCYkwBiJ7WI3PWrLmEgmFALNLmgl1zhEBdLNXW+QvtMhBIpppUcwHsIc4qxe XbMl5xpPahasb+iQeRnSUr/UovJ3M4sFwiLYcLZ6UAqJoF+rAArSxF+gUjTGGVamxnxP a3Di9X8UitD8XPvwpkB+BPFzGiIGanfoinMwFYpsVP9jguij2dcjKR0CgH1+RLQVxXDW UydxobL7ied7XMx1diZ3fSIvBci01RlQYq3URoRj7z8GozeRfx9MY25aDTnzSSvB5jw4 KhK6hNu5ghJq9GJV4vvfQed1lLqhEOOF5livY+u8xaklaslbT3cYjmCwJbcrExiKRjGJ 8qmA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=OTeXhnt7lITPO6mEkcRZlJCwUsX4xPrl+rq2loxMjUQ=; b=kHW7PSSCRH9KFYii0z+KpCthZrRfMXNTo/u5bs20uIm/xEQuAT/FXxWsu3P3k2zAaI vV11VNuv+SZpynHVwi8pENRQyJERDGaCeC4rIvLQCCDXc0Ur3K1E4dw1g/Bo8a/nSAEP jHloLqiajYwMq3TnIMqZriWif6s359jqbJsK+1Hn5MkwUed6JWndteesPzX6wDA8+W+H eI9x7Qhpf34oKMMv2W+vzAA22LPKzc5GsmLN5La0j9oXlevUulCyTNB0akqhv2LeY+RL gAynLVDL7eRvwbG1UEovm4UbVMTiZWHI9Bsz/8u0G+RjqDPQzRILa4+W2v3TQOSE/LSi 7vpw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaX5U0W3JGDm5R9DPL95HBohG5j+k3qGTce+0NIVsyQKFSQQ8PCC dIMa7vmsFGj4rv/WK0OUfOrwh7dOs51vtDu6SNO64A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+T8GKRdHlM7cGcheibgpPWaV/2iOZlktgFOsqCofuTgHqHKHWAtGPqLYTR/Yyf+HePXKbSYPdc8Sd3fWwvH3yA=
X-Received: by 10.28.196.79 with SMTP id u76mr803086wmf.95.1508484591831; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 00:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.28.146.135 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Oct 2017 00:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <m2lgk6ige4.wl-randy@psg.com>
References: <1F4BD63B-3273-469E-A3C6-4365B56724EA@juniper.net> <AC8407B8-F59B-4945-AB3E-CBEED52E8AC5@juniper.net> <CA+b+ER=jRtacTLmfphHmDEFBq9mi58OTaTJPGDDDz-jK61JkOQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2lgk6ige4.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 09:29:50 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: KI6BOgNRQyFlYx4kUUMuh8hMkrc
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERnRfbh-6WYYjcUF4goaJj08DZ6G8hD-U-qUrJM7j4km2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1931fa3ed2cf055bf570e9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/5Xr3KSOVVr9WB1s278xd1i_-fLQ>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-14
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 07:29:55 -0000

Randy,

This is first time I hear that use of not use of MUSTs and SHOULDs
classifies an I-D as standards track, informational or bcp. To me spec
content means a bit more then use or not use of those words.

But as I said personally I completely do not care how it is
progressed/shipped.

It is shipping in major routing implementations today and is being used in
few networks and evaluated for use in few others and this is what really
matters the most to me.

Cheers,
R.

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

> >> There is an unresolved question from Randy Bush as to whether the
> >> document should really be Standards Track or some other status
> >> (Informational and BCP were both mentioned).
> >
> > I explained the rationale for keeping it as Standards Track document.
> >
> > There is also recent outstanding question from Randy supposedly
> questioning
> > the name of section 4.3. I personally do not see anything wrong with the
> > current name.
>
> you did not understand my point.  i was fine with the title of that
> section.  i was pointing out that it was an operational guidance
> section, not a protocol section.  and it had the only occurrences of
> normative language.  hence my suggestion that this was an informative
> bcp.
>
> randy
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email