Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-10.txt (6/4 to 6/18)(.

Hi Susan,

in line with Brian (thanks for the wording, hope you don’t mind that I copy it for my reply):

Please comment on the following questions: 

1) Is this specification ready for publication?
	I have read the latest version of this draft.
	I believe it is ready for publication and support advancement to publication.

2) Are there deployments where this BGP protocol extension is valuable?
	This BGP protocol extension is valuable in every conceivable Internet-connected BGP-speaking router, i.e. for address families IPv4 and IPv6 at a minimum.

3) Do you believe the error code handling is ready for publication?
	Yes.

-- 
Sebastian Becker
sb@lab.dtag.de

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 2:20 PM Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com <mailto:shares@ndzh.com>> wrote:
This begins a 2 week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-10.txt

From 6/4 to 6/18/2020. 

There are 3 implementations:   BIRD (1.76, 2.05) , FRR, and Mikrotik.

The BIRD and FRR implementations interoperate.

I do not have details on Mikrotik. 

Details on the  interoperability are on the following IDR wiki page:

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy>

Only one  error handling issues exists on the ability of BIRD

to send Role Mismatch (Open Error (2), subcode 8). 

Another protocol was assigned to subcode 8. 

Please comment on the following questions:

1) Is this specification ready for publication?

2) Are there deployments where this BGP protocol extension is valuable?

3) Do you believe the error code handling is ready for publication?

The shepherd for this draft is Susan Hares. 

During the WG LC, the shepherd’s report will be sent.

Cheers,

_______________________________________________

Idr mailing list

Idr@ietf.org <mailto:Idr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>