Re: [Idr] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis (7/9/2021 to 7/25/2021)

Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Fri, 09 July 2021 20:35 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.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 67F6A3A2E2B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 13:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.347
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.398, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 zHc_ppphFBvC for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 13:35:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.97]) (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 EF7BD3A2E2A for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 13:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=50.107.119.54;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: <idr@ietf.org>
References: <00d201d77501$228d9480$67a8bd80$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <00d201d77501$228d9480$67a8bd80$@ndzh.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2021 16:35:31 -0400
Message-ID: <00f801d77501$fbb46680$f31d3380$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00F9_01D774E0.74A3D7F0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGWKEYuqZrZhT+3jRN4eP1TerR8C6u9swOg
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/8EI2xlHtt1bXt-I6wKCVbeQ6LfA>
Subject: Re: [Idr] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis (7/9/2021 to 7/25/2021)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 09 Jul 2021 20:35:48 -0000

3 implementations exist that are aligned to the RFC7752bis: 

 

See the implementation report at: 

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-RFC7752bis%20implementati
ons%20

 

Sue 

 

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Friday, July 9, 2021 4:29 PM
To: idr@ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis (7/9/2021 to
7/25/2021)

 

This begins a 2 week WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-07.txt.

(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis/) 

 

This draft is a revision of the RFC7752 on the Distribution of Link-State
and Traffic Engineering Information Using BGP (BGP-LS) based on experience
over the last 12 years since the 2009 publication of the RFC.  

 

There is a 3rd party IPR statement on this draft. 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3623/

 

In your comments, please consider: 

1.  Is this draft ready for publication?  

2. Does this represent the status of deployed implementations? 

3. Are there any critical corrections to RFC7752 which have been left out? 

4. What extensions should be left to future BGP-LS drafts? 

 

This draft is being shepherded by all 3 IDR chairs.  

 

Cheerily, Sue