[Idr] Re: Concluded: WG Adoption call for draft-hegdearavind-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-ext, ends 31 October, 2025.

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

< speaking only as a co-author and not on behalf of my co-authors >

Hi Jeff,

I would think we would need to wait for implementation experience given we
just got the code points allocated.

That said, as editor of a few documents, I've made the call to "ship" in
consultation with the shepherding co-chair rather than keep piling things
on in a WG document. So, I fully support that way forward.

Thanks,
Ketan


On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 11:44 PM Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Ketan,
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 2025, at 1:07 PM, Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > This document started as a "catch-up" for BGP-LS encoding for the more
> recent FlexAlgo IGP extensions as indicated by Aravind.
> >
> > Now, more extensions are coming up and ideally the BGP-LS encodings
> could be covered in those LSR WG documents with some relatively small text
> updates to avoid the need for separate BGP-LS documents in IDR. This is not
> always the case, but probably is for these 2 newer documents that Aravind
> identifies. Personally, this would be my preference.
> >
> > On the other side, it is up to the IDR WG to choose between "closing"
> this document quickly or waiting until some smallish finite time to cover
> other LSR FlexAlgo related specs. I would request the IDR chairs to weigh
> in.
>
> By somewhat analogous comparison, the rib-stats document in GROW for BMP
> started with one particular set of stats.  There's been motivation to add
> the next set of related stats incrementally.
>
> That document needs to hit RFC at some point.  Same thing here.
>
> And thus the question: If it's catch-up, what's the trajectory?  Do the
> documents share fate enough that bundling must be done? Should be done?
> Ship one because 3/5 of the extensions can go quickly and the next two may
> take... 6 months?  Two years?
>
> The goal is neither to block the work, nor to stretch the length of life
> of the document as an I-D rather than as an RFC.  If the work flows better
> as one document - fine. Shipping another doc with the additional encodings
> for the two new drafts later - also fine if that makes sense.
>
> And that said, the scope has crept and didn't even make it past -00 before
> that happened.  Thus the questions. :-)
>
> -- Jeff
>
>