Return-Path: 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 8A44312006B for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 05:42:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.947 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 JDt4tVDj5HDr for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 05:42:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-100-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.100]) (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 D6AC0120089 for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 05:42:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=174.124.224.176; From: "Susan Hares" To: "'tom petch'" , "'Robert Raszuk'" Cc: "'idr@ietf. org'" References: <01ce01d5167f$d263a120$772ae360$@ndzh.com> <02cf01d51ab1$052bfc80$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <004201d51abd$498a5000$dc9ef000$@ndzh.com> <005301d51ac3$4b6e6a90$e24b3fb0$@ndzh.com> <06b001d51acc$aa5efca0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> In-Reply-To: <06b001d51acc$aa5efca0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 08:42:14 -0400 Message-ID: <00af01d51ad2$f01c52a0$d054f7e0$@ndzh.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQGY39g/S8sCt+WuAGK2LIFpJMMw4wIpWAlKAqyDdnsDWhrmLAJBikNdAsYOOOABEEOFwaaRprGw Content-Language: en-us X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 190604-2, 06/04/2019), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext [5/2 - 5/16/2018] X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org 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: Tue, 04 Jun 2019 12:42:28 -0000 Tom: It is easy to have the authors change the name, and link the old draft = to the new draft's name. I'll address this issue later today or early = tomorrow. =20 I'm pushing out WG LC, shepherd reports, adoption calls, and issue calls = before I attend to name changes today. People have 4 weeks to finalize = drafts before IETF 106 - so I'm completing the things that WG members = need to take action on. =20 Cheerily, Susan Hares=20 -----Original Message----- From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of tom petch Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 8:02 AM To: Susan Hares; 'Robert Raszuk' Cc: 'idr@ietf. org' Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext [5/2 = - 5/16/2018] Sue Sorry I was too terse, but yes, Christoph and Robert provided the = expansion. Draft names do disappear with the RFC but then there are times we need = to look back at the history, and then, having a single name for the = adopted I-D is simplest. On the other hand, when I search or collate the = names, in folders, e-mails etc having a common string - bgp-ls rather = than bgpls - makes things easier for me to find. So changing the name complicates things, leaving it as-is complicates = things. Grrr why did I not spot this prior to adoption? On balance, I think leave the name as is but I want you to agree with = this. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan Hares" To: "'Robert Raszuk'" Cc: "'idr@ietf. org'" Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2019 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext [5/2 - 5/16/2018] Robert: Ah=E2=80=A6 thanks for unpacking Tom=E2=80=99s message. Since John = and I are focused on getting all the WG drafts toward RFC (where the draft name does not = matter), I had not consider this point. Acee and Chris in LSR have standardized on a particular form of bgp-ls. Tom Petch has a good point. As to the 99% of BGP-LS, that=E2=80=99s a question the chairs and ADs = tried to ask the WG in 2018. The WG did not engage on that discussion. In order to protect the BGP stream, the ADs/Chairs pushed for = draft-ketana-rfc7752bis.txt (for improved error handling) and larger BGP = messages (see raft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-30.txt). Cheerily, Sue Hares From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 6:30 AM To: Susan Hares Cc: idr@ietf. org Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext [5/2 - 5/16/2018] Hi Sue, To me Tom was simply pointing out difference in name if the draft where = dash is missing in "bgp-ls" string in this specific case. On the other points you have raised I think it is missing the = fundamental one ... since when what used to be a wg focused in the past = on interdomain routing became a mainstream of link state, topology, bfd, = pce data collection and distribution. Even charter aside IMO by shifting IDR focus and processing 99% of = BGP-LS related documents we are doing huge disservice to Internet and = routing related needs without even bringing the aspect of protocol = pollution. Kind regards, R. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019, 12:07 Susan Hares wrote: Tom: Your short mail usually has good suggestions, so I tried to decode this = message - but I failed. I'm guessing at the question. If this question is about the multiple drafts for the BGP-LS, see my = message yesterday to Jeff regarding drafts from LSR with BGP-LS code = points and early allocations. If this question is about BGP-LS error handling, see my wish/hope that = draft the draft-ketana-rfc7752bis.txt will be ready for adoption soon. If this question is about early code point allocation, this early = allocation policy is IESG/IANA policy. If you wish me to ask for a = change, please unpack the message so I can work on it. Cheerily, Susan -----Original Message----- From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of tom petch Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 4:44 AM To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant); Susan Hares; idr@ietf.org Cc: draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext [5/2 - 5/16/2018] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" Sent: Monday, June 03, 2019 2:36 AM Hello All, The WG version of this draft has been posted as below You have done exactly what you were asked to do, but it is unfortunate = that all the other ID have bgp-ls while this has bgpls. Sue, Are you happy to live with this? Tom Petch https://datatracker..ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-00 We would like to request for early code point allocation from IANA to = enable implementations with suggested code points as indicated below: The following codepoints is suggested (to be assigned by IANA) from within the sub-registry called "BGP-LS NLRI-Types": +------+----------------------------+---------------+ | Type | NLRI Type | Reference | +------+----------------------------+---------------+ | 6 | SRv6 SID | this document | +------+----------------------------+---------------+ The following TLV codepoints are suggested (to be assigned by IANA) from within the sub-registry called "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs": +----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+ | TLV Code | Description | Value defined | | Point | | in | +----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+ | 1038 | SRv6 Capabilities TLV | this document | | 1106 | SRv6 End.X SID TLV | this document | | 1107 | IS-IS SRv6 LAN End.X SID TLV | this document | | 1108 | OSPFv3 SRv6 LAN End.X SID TLV | this document | | 1162 | SRv6 Locator TLV | this document | | 518 | SRv6 SID Information TLV | this document | | 1250 | SRv6 Endpoint Function TLV | this document | | 1251 | SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV | this document | +----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+ Thanks, Ketan From: Susan Hares Sent: 30 May 2019 06:07 To: idr@ietf.org Cc: draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext [5/2 - 5/16/2018] draft-dwara-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext has been adopted. The authors should submit the draft as: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-00.txt. As soon as this draft has been submitted, an early code point allocation = call will begin. Cheerily, Sue ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr