Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt (2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021)

Susan Hares <> Fri, 12 February 2021 18:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E433A1804 for <>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 10:08:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.348
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DQUcOYk0VxEJ for <>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 10:08:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 018603A184D for <>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 10:08:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: Susan Hares <>
To: "'Acee Lindem (acee)'" <>,
References: <015601d70163$43fe2c40$cbfa84c0$> <017e01d70164$fb65d030$f2317090$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 13:08:32 -0500
Message-ID: <01bf01d7016a$135cd0d0$3a167270$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01C0_01D70140.2A887680"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQEV9qWNQ16c0czdVOgVmm13yqFBBgLn7+M8AUgiHE2rtWTggA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 210211-4, 02/11/2021), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt (2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 18:08:42 -0000



Yes.  I noticed that fact about operator feedback as well.    As co-chair/shepherd, I welcome all operator input (DC, IXP, carrier, … ) regarding this draft  - both positive and negative.    


Cheers,  Sue 


From: Acee Lindem (acee) [] 
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 1:02 PM
To: Susan Hares;
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt (2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021)


HI Sue, 


From: Idr <> on behalf of Susan Hares <>
Date: Friday, February 12, 2021 at 12:32 PM
To: IDR List <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt (2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021)


Typo error.   Resending for clarity to the authors. 




In this discussion we do not have consensus on the following things: 


a) the problem this draft is drafting to solve relating to BGP routes, 

b) the need for additional mechanisms to solve the problem, 

c) a clear description of the technology to solve the problem. 


It is difficult to do (b) and (c) without a consensus on the problem.  Since this is the 2nd time this draft has gone up for adoption, the co-chairs are considering the input from the list and will provide some suggestions to the authors.   


The authors and those who are making comments on this draft are welcome to continue discussing the topic on-list.   


A big thanks to the operators who have shared their view of the need for the technology and to all IDR members who have recalled that “clear speech and kindness can go together”.  


I don’t see a lot of support from operators other than the co-authors. 






Cheers, Sue