Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-06.txt (2/4/2022 to 2/18/2022)

Job: 

<WG chair hat on> 

IDR WG has done WG LC for protocols without 2 complete implementations.
If a draft passes WG LC, the Chairs then hold the 
Draft until we have 2 implementations. 

In the past, the IDR WG chairs required 
all mandatory requirements are implemented. 

a) The T/C bits in section 3.1 are mandatory.  
B_ The TargetTLV with "no Targets" is a mandatory attribute. 
(see 4.4.1 in version -06.txt) 

The IDR WG may request WG chairs to forward a  
draft for publication with some
optional features not implemented.   

The atoms (both 4.4.1 + 4.4.2) are included in that list. 

The implementation report is at: 
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities

The WG draft is at: 
 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities/

 <WG chair hat off>

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Job Snijders
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 10:12 AM
To: Robert Raszuk
Cc: Keyur Patel; idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-06.txt
(2/4/2022 to 2/18/2022)

Hi Robert,

On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 03:52:45PM +0100, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> >   * support for T/C/R bits (section 3.1)
> 
> Where do you see R bit in the latest version as per subject line ?
> 
> >       * no targets
> >       * atoms (both 4.4.1 + 4.4.2)
> 
> Implementations can clarify that,.
> 
> >      * RouterAttr_
> 
> Can you point to the text

If the text at this URL is outdated, WGLC is going to be really hard because
how can the working group assess whether the document has been adequately
implemented and tested for interopability, if the report contains outdated
or incorrect information?

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities

Please revise the above Trac wiki as needed.

> In general I think if we start cutting any spec into N different 
> documents each progressing only when there are two documented 
> implementations of its optional parameters or fields it is going to be 
> a huge mess both implementation wise as well as

I disagree.

> What I think matters is if not implementing optional capabilities in 
> any negative way affects the core purpose of the spec. If yes I agree 
> such elements should be removed before publication. But if not I see 
> no harm to leave them in the WG document/RFC.

So we agree on removing substantial parts of the internet-draft?

Kind regards,

Job

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr