Re: [Idr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-25: (with COMM
Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Thu, 21 June 2018 13:28 UTC
Return-Path: <rraszuk@gmail.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 4C067130E3B; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 06:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.42
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.42 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-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 Hg-31tLuAd-t; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 06:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-f53.google.com (mail-pg0-f53.google.com [74.125.83.53]) (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 761D2130E2B; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 06:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id c9-v6so1441614pgf.5; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 06:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1+FwmP2/LmMTjgdBFn95T/KKBrCfQnN40NYQQTytxUU=; b=orVCd5WUXgfpbgyNEmbrH4GVgulyygmL66S2goFokjLm7nDNd6PwfXslPhZKb4Mxq2 1wSlE2RIp0KjdVbcmYhaYKhgjAB5gRQCjtopmxo4O4ykEb8AeztWWaFpwYWwRjxj9nuc IkKTyWCP6hq6e25yLajotrZrLHX4T2cgYTJLP9MS/gWF5Wl4VGTEZSghl3BAq/tKlQrd 6gsWR96ThqUJWCqUvptg5PD6d79R1islaxmsUY55pFeGTvWXSAlXiNd6G3Z7I+GbivFJ OgntsMSGdaZcWvEGufeOVNZRsViQoobouoncH4gxniDtMFuW+tPpwIlkUPy+92pg9Vo/ dPNA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E1KFT+AmcOKI1nsXQxng7NpOtfKYVBO/X43bYybk1MG+kWuu+fs yTQKAj7ZYEPNsLuRcIZ5Py7RxafH8Dn6V8w6H5g=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJuEXwWZVVm04mmAwabE5QKu6yxXSsfDnssqtqH9C8YDnPUMnQhUFlWLga3Cm/fwEWA78Fmvf/dBKeKIK3K2dw=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:3488:: with SMTP id b130-v6mr22367873pga.396.1529587698456; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 06:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <026601d408f3$2ca3bb70$85eb3250$@ndzh.com> <3EB622E5-2208-486F-A78F-4C34B3D1C5D5@cisco.com> <2A2B773F-4BF5-4C2E-8978-261FE40DD93D@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <2A2B773F-4BF5-4C2E-8978-261FE40DD93D@cisco.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 15:28:04 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERk2if2sb1H_AHRRjZcT0AtsvWTGQdLzOTo3PLyxxwid=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006b60db056f26e388"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/9f7hZI56zTk36MryYwNc0geR8M8>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-25: (with COMM
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 13:28:24 -0000
Acee, RFC8277 has nothing to do with this entire discussion. Yes you would need to upgrade RRs which is not that bad ;) But as already stated since you are *only* putting this new attribute in SAFI 4 there is no "leaking issue" any more and that should be your chosen line of defence ;) Best, R. On Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 15:19 Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote: > All, > > > > Actually, the input I’ve gotten is not to change this to a non-transitive > attribute since this would essentially revert to RFC 8277 if any BGP router > not supporting the attribute is in the path. With the transitive attribute, > a single BGP router only represents a break in the SR path where local > labels are used. > > > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > *From: *"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> > *Date: *Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 8:17 PM > *To: *Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, > Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> > *Cc: *Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, IDR List <idr@ietf.org>, " > idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, " > draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org" < > draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> > *Subject: *Re: [Idr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on > draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-25: (with COMM > > > > Hi Sue, > > I think you are confusing this draft with > draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe. This draft is not an extension > of BGP-LS. I have no problems with making this a non-transitive attribute > since this only impacts attributes that are not recognized by the receiver. > What I do have a problem with are further delays when and reiterations as > my opinion is that it never should have gone through the whole last-call > and directorate review cycle again in the first place. There are multiple > implementations of the draft and it has been in around for almost 4 years – > everyone has had ample opportunity for review. > > Thanks, > > Acee > > > > *From: *Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> > *Date: *Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 8:03 PM > *To: *Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> > *Cc: *"acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, > IDR List <idr@ietf.org>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, " > draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org" < > draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> > *Subject: *RE: [Idr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on > draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-25: (with COMM > *Resent-From: *<alias-bounces@ietf.org> > *Resent-To: *Stefano Previdi <stefano@previdi.net>, <cf@cisco.com>, Acee > Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, Arjun Sreekantiah <arjunhrs@gmail.com>, < > hannes@rtbrick.com> > *Resent-Date: *Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 8:03 PM > > > > Warren, Robert, Acee: > > > > Warren has a valid question. I cannot find a long mail thread on > transitive or non-transitive for this specific attribute. > > > > Answering Warren’s question about discussions in WG also requires it > within a larger discussion. The mechanism in > draft-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-25.txt is a BGP attribute sent as an exception if > the BGP-LS service for Segment Routing (SR) is not available. The BGP-LS > service for SR routing consists of BGP-LS NLRI and BGP Attributes. > Draft-idr-bgp-prefix-sid’s mechanism expands the traffic flow burden for > BGP beyond just BGP-LS peers. Is this wise beyond a single AS? > > > > Some long-term participants of IDR say it is unwise to expand BGP-LS to SR > routing (Robert Raszuk, Tony Li). Therefore I suspect that restricting > draft-idr-bgp-prefix-sid to a non-transitive attribute lessens some > concerns, but does not resolve the main issues. > > > > The question of transitive or non-transitive depends on what you think SR > and BGP’s mechanisms for SR should do. If you think SR is a vibrant > technology which would should help to mature, then you may want to make it > easy for the multiple ASes within a Data Center to use the SR functions. > If this is your belief, then the attribute should be transitive. > > > > If you are concerned about BGP-LS and SR requiring additional resources of > BGP peers which do not support BGP-LS, then you will want the attribute to > be non-transitive or refuse to standardize this mechanism. > > > > To review IDR’s decision (and the IESG should), you will need to put in > the context of the entire SR mechanisms that are forthcoming in BGP based > on the SR Architecture decided by SPRING. The IESG has approved SR > architecture and main applications (draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing, > draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-10.txt., and > drat-ietf-segment-routing-msdc-09.txt), but it has not looked at the > mechanisms for SR extensions to BGP-LS or the concept of extending BGP-LS. > > > > The rest of this long memo has two parts: > > > > 1) 2 problems I see in the current draft-ietf-bgp-peer-sid based on > additional reviews of BGP documents I did in preparation for this IESG > Review of this document, > > > > 2) Big picture information for Warren’s information > > > > 3) Summary of current status of BGP work regarding SR and BGP-LS > > > > If Warren or the IESG has not considered these issues in depth, I > recommend the scope of the SR and BGP additions for SR are such that we > should hold a briefing session for the IESG at Montreal. > > > > As IDR co-chair, it is my hope to move all of these documents on BGP-LS > additions for SR toward completion (standardization or closure on next > steps) within the next few months. > > > > Susan Hares > > Shepherd > > IDR co-chair > > > > ======================================================= > > > > Personal concerns as co-chair on draft > > ======================= > > Please note that I see the BGP-LS work as a vibrant technology that needs > to have error handling and manageability improved in order to be released > in an environment where BGP Peers are interoperable/ > > > > Problem 1: > > I noted over the weekend that draft-ietf-bgp-prefix-sid-25.txt does not > specify what happens with the BGP attribute for BGP Peer-SID is contained > in a BGP packet with: > > · BGP Attribute for BGP-LS with BGP attributes for SR routing > (per draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-08), or > > · BGP Attribute for BGP-LS with BGP attributes for BGP-EPE SR > routing for the centralized controller form of segment routing (per > draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-15). > > > > I noticed that the drafts simply say the normal BGP-LS error handling will > work, but these normally fine BGP-LS attributes are not valid when taken > together. This is “content” checking – so the drafts all need to be > revised. (see my shepherd comments on the drafts). > > > > Problem 2: > > Another concern is draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-09 in section > 4.1 makes RFC8277 (BGP with labels) + BGP attribute for bgp-prefix SID as > the main BGP choice for the data center. The direction does not match the > statement draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-25 that says: > > > > This document assumes that BGP-LS is the preferred method for > > collecting both peer segments (Peer SIDs) and SRGB information > > through [RFC7752 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7752>], [ > I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-25#ref-I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe>], > and > > [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-25#ref-I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext>]. > However, as an > > optional alternative for the advertisement of the local SRGB > > without the topology nor the peer SIDs, hence without > > applicability for TE, the Originator SRGB TLV of the BGP Prefix- > > SID attribute is specified in Section 3.2 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-25#section-3.2> > of this document. > > > > The draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-09.txt does not really treat > the draft-ietf-bgp-prefix-sid-25.txt as an “exception”. It is this > creeping feature that has made some long-time IDR participants asked where > the boundaries of the SR additions to BGP are. > > > > As IDR co-chair, I need to understand is the bgp attribute for BGP Peer > SID an exception for a corner case (as IDR WG says) or a main mechanism of > a use case (as SPRING WG Says). > > > > ====================== > > Overview of the BGP-LS discussion > > ------------- > > A) Big picture Issues > > > > BGP-LS was passed due as an informational stream among specific routers > that were carrying information to the centralized controller. This > information stream was to limited to a set of BGP peers who primary job was > to pass information to allow off-line computation of routes (SDN or > centralized controller). > > > > BGP-LS for segment routing adds feedback to this information stream by > providing mechanisms to tag certain links, nodes, adjacencies, and Peer > sets as segments. Based on this information routing can utilize these > segments to established smart forwarding planes to enable source-routing > protocol within a domain. The BGP-LS weight is currently carried only by > the routers who have BGP-LS functions. > > > > The expansion outside of that set of peers to general BGP peers is what > the draft-bgp-prefix-sid-25 is proposing. This expansion may spread the > burden of information flow to more peers than the original scope of BGP-LS. > > > > SPRING’s WG is spreading the amount of information sent by BGP-LS peers. > > > > With the IESG’s approval of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing and > draft-spring-segment-routing-central-epe, you have enabled an architecture > that allows SDN controller to control a single AS or a group of ASes within > the wide-area. With draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc, you have enable > for one or many datacenters. Data centers may have thousands or tens of > thousands of BGP ASes (from the private AS space). > > > > The expansion of BGP to carrying massive amounts of Traffic Engineering > for IGPs (draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-10.txt, > draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-02) and BGPs is a natural > outgrowth of the source-routing use of BGP. This direction needs to be > confirmed before we send the next 10 drafts from IDR into the IESG. In > this way, the IESG will agree to the direction and then each draft can be > evaluate in terms of its fitting with the direction. > > > > Have the Security ADs taken a strong look at the potential failure cases > for the Segment Routing architecture as expressed by BGP? If so, feedback > should be given on all BGP-LS drafts and the spring architecture. > > > > Tony Li and Robert Raszuks, have commented that this extension to BGP-LS > goes beyond the bounds of good network technology. As I have described, the > expansion of the information flow is grown in 2 direction: more data (SR > extensions, SR-TE extensions, BGP-EPE extensions, etc.. ) and more peers > (bgp-prefix-sid) beyond just the BGP-LS capable BGP peers. > > > > The IDR and SPRING WG have been working on these technologies for 3 years > so hopefully, the IESG has an opinion about the extension of BGP-LS in > these two fashions to serve these features. I would be glad to provide a > BGP discussion with the IESG along with my IDR co-chair and with the chairs > of the SPRING WG. > > > > ================= > > Key drafts for BGP-LS passing Service besides draft-ietf-bgp-prefix-sid > > > > Please note that the key drafts for the BGP portion of segment routing > are: > > 1. draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-ext-08 – changes to BGP > attribute for BGP-LS and BGP-LS NLRI to support segment routing, > > > > status: This draft has passed WG LC, see shepherd’s report for latest > revisions needed. The draft is generally readable, so please read the draft > before deciding on bgp-prefix-sid. Please remember that the TLVs being > proposed are for both the NLRI and the attribute. > > > > Spring WG link: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing – getting IGP > information. > > > > Shepherd’s concern: 1) Error handling and manageability with other BGP > technology (Yang models), 2) security concerns, 3) > > > > > > > > 2. draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-15 > > > > Status: Passed WG LC, and provides the mechanisms needed SR’s BGP Peer > Egress Peer Engineering (BGP-EPE). Please see my shepherd’s report on this > draft. > > > > Shepherd’s concerns: 1) error handling/manageability, 2) security > concerns, 3) adaption of this technology beyond E-BGP to IBGP is > underspecified (see long-term looping issues with IBGP RR), 3) security > > > > Editorial comment: This draft needs a lot of editorial work so reading > this draft may be difficult. Authors are active in upgrading the draft. > > > > 3. draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-10 – > > > > Status: WG-LC light response, 1 Week final call (6/20 to 6/27) > > Shepherd’s comments: Technology links nicely to the traffic Engineering > for BGP-LS in general. SR can utilize this information. Chairs have > discussed forwarding this traffic. > > > > 4. Draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-node-admin-tag-extension > > > > Status: PAST WG LC > > Shepherd’s comments: Needs additions for 1) Error handling comment, 2) > Manageability, 3) small addition to security security. > > > > 5. draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-03.txt > > > > Status: WG Draft > > Spring WG link: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-01 > > > > Shepherd’s comments: Policy inclusion for SR is recommended by > > Spring. BGP SR TE policy sub-TLVS fit SPRING’s requirement > > If IDR, SPRING And IESG Agree it should be added. > > Should any of > > > > 6. draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld: > > > > Status: WG draft > > > > Spring-link: MPLS Entropy label exposing from IGPs (ISIS and OSPF) the > information on RLD (readable label depth) and ELC (entropy label > capability) of a node. This addition supports a centralized controller > application of spring > (draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-10.txt). > > > > Shepherd’s comment: TLVs are for BGP attribute for BGP-LS and > > BGP-LS NLRI to be shared amount BGP-LS peers. > > > > Shepherd’s concerns: error handling (conflicting TLVS in BGP attribute, > conflicting TLVs in BGP-LS attribute > > > > 7. draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd > > Status: WG Draft > > > > IGP-link: Capturing IGP (ISIS, OSPF) the Maximum SID Depth supported by a > node (draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd, > draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-msd). > > PCE –link: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing. > > > > Shepherd’s comment: TLVs are for BGP attribute for BGP-LS and > > BGP-LS NLRI to be shared amount BGP-LS peers. > > Shepherd’s concerns: error handling (conflicting TLVS in BGP attribute, > conflicting TLVs in BGP-LS attribute. > > > > > > > > C) Upcoming IPv6 work > > > > The upcoming SRv6 work is being proposed in: > draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-03, draft-dawra-idr-srv6-vpn-03, > draft-kentant-idr-bgp-ls-bgp-only-fabric-03. > > > > Additional extensions for the BGP-LS for Inter-AS topology, routing, or > service chaining include: Draft-chunduri-idr-bgp-ls-nspfid, > draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment, > draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution, and others. > > > > > > *From:* Warren Kumari [mailto:warren@kumari.net] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 20, 2018 3:08 PM > *To:* Robert Raszuk > *Cc:* acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org; idr@ietf. org; idr-chairs@ietf.org; > draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org; The IESG > *Subject:* Re: [Idr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on > draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-25: (with COMMENT) > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:01 AM Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote: > > Hi Acee, > > > > Just making the attribute non transitive to prevent accidental leaking > worldwide would easliy address this valid concern for the cost of upgrading > RRs (if applicable) in any given domain which is to use it. > > > > That sounds like a fine idea -- was this discussed and rejected? Is > there any reason that this cannot be non-transitive? > > > > W > > > > > > Leaking it with IPv6 routes globally - either by accident or not so > perfect operational practices of the sourcing AS seems like an a little > architecture bug since such info would be of no use externally to > original administrative domain. > > > > Best, > > R. > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) < > acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Hi Warren, > > > On Jun 18, 2018, at 8:30 PM, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote: > > > > Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-25: No Objection > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > Please refer to > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid/ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > I'm balloting NoObjection, but I'm sad that nothing came of my previous > request: > > > > "Major(ish) issue: > > Section 5. Advertising BGP Prefix-SID Attribute > > "The BGP Prefix-SID attribute MAY be attached to labeled BGP prefixes > > (IPv4/IPv6) [RFC8277] or to IPv6 unicast prefixes [RFC4760]. In > > order to prevent distribution of the BGP Prefix-SID attribute beyond > > its intended scope of applicability, attribute filtering SHOULD be > > deployed." > > Thank you for including this -- however, as I'm sure you know, the state > of BGP > > filtering in the wild is, er, poor. Can you please provide some > additional > > guidance? For example, could you include an appendix with examples? > > No. As I told you before this is a can of worms that I’m not going to open > in this draft (and particularly not during IESG review). As I also told you > before the state of BGP filtering is something that you should propose as a > work item for your OPS homies in the GROW WG. > > > > Or simply a > > bit more text on determining the scope of applicability? Apologies if I > missed > > this, but should this by default be filtered on eBGP sessions? The > included > > text is a great start, but some more (so people don't miss it and shoot > > themselves in the foot would be much appreciated. “ > > I will add “, e.g., at SR domain boundaries,’ to the statement. > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > > > > > > > -- > > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea > in the first place. > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of > pants. > ---maf >
- Re: [Idr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-i… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-i… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-i… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-i… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Idr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-i… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Idr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-i… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-i… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-i… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-i… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-i… stefano previdi
- Re: [Idr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-i… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-i… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-i… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Idr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-i… Susan Hares