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

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

I am fine with standards track.

Kind regards,

Job

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> 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.
>
> Thx,
> R.
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:57 PM, John G. Scudder <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> An update on this WGLC.
>>
>> Tl;dr: Before we proceed forward we need to see the promised IPR
>> declaration from Cisco, we need to hear back from Stephane about IPR, and we
>> need to close on the question Randy raised regarding document status.
>>
>> 1. IPR
>>
>> Serpil Bayraktar let me know a few days ago that Cisco intends to disclose
>> IPR. The disclosure hasn't been filed yet, we will not progress the document
>> until it has been filed and the WG has an opportunity to consider the
>> filing. I would like to encourage the WG to wait until the filing is done
>> before discussing further -- while we wait you may want to pass the time
>> reviewing the IETF's policy on what is, and is not, in-scope for us to
>> consider when discussing IPR in our work.
>>
>> Authors Robert Raszuk, Bruno Decraene, Eric Aman, Kevin Wang, and Adam
>> Chappell have said they didn't know of any IPR. Christian Cassar said "I was
>> not aware of any IPR. I will work with Serpil and we will get back."
>> Stephane Litkowski hasn't answered.
>>
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection
>>
>> 2. Other
>>
>> Support from Job Snijders, Nick Hilliard, Rajiv Asati, Serpil Bayraktar,
>> Manish Bhardwaj, Keyur Patel, Jeff Tantsura, Acee Lindem
>>
>> Review by Job Snijders, largely about route recursion, led to a discussion
>> and update to the document.
>>
>> Note that much of the support was expressed before the IPR issue came up,
>> and it's the individuals' prerogative to change their minds if they see fit.
>> Support was for version -15 of the document, though, or at least was
>> expressed subsequent to the discussion and publication of -15.
>>
>> 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).
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --John
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 6, 2017, at 8:30 PM, John Scudder <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > (This is the first of a series of WGLCs as we work to clear backlog. We
>> > will stagger the WGLCs somewhat.)
>> >
>> > A working group last call has been requested for
>> > draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-14. Please reply to the list
>> > with your comments. As usual note we cannot advance the draft without
>> > participation from the group. Please get your comments in before October 20,
>> > 2017.
>> >
>> > Authors, please confirm that any relevant IPR has been disclosed.
>> >
>> >
>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Didr-2Dbgp-2Doptimal-2Droute-2Dreflection-2D14&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=hLt5iDJpw7ukqICc0hoT7A&m=2T8sWKXOuk1R-CTDDPFM8HO_a6AbOHGOseJ81Ht9_4Q&s=yunFv1zXtd-bLp5IQGspvPZQYpLtAFtcXdjv_vA4-rU&e=
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > --John
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idr mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>