[Idr] WG status - 7/14/2020 (before shepherd reports)

Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Tue, 14 July 2020 19:43 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D84AB3A09F3 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 12:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.216
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.267, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I9QxbxFzU4nf for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 12:43:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net []) (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 0085B3A0A29 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 12:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: "'idr@ietf. org'" <idr@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:43:46 -0400
Message-ID: <01cb01d65a17$171973e0$454c5ba0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01CC_01D659F5.900B2F40"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdZaFxUqNKH8XGHpQNiHB8+fB2AAaQ==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 200714-10, 07/14/2020), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/9fVPJSLWXvJpdL4STJFXl-3EM-w>
Subject: [Idr] WG status - 7/14/2020 (before shepherd reports)
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: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 19:43:53 -0000



There are a number of WG LCs, shepherd reports, 

and design status  updates outstanding for the Group.   

Rather than wait for status after finishing all the shepherd reviews,

I'm going to announce the status before/after I finish the reviews. 


I have two drafts that I urgently need submitted for update: 


1) draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-05.txt - we have 2 implementations. 

   It is time to complete our work on this draft


2) draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-09.txt - the IANA early assignment 

   will disappear in august unless I get an updated draft. 


Please let me know if you can at least do this on 7/28/2020. 


Status Report 



WG LC on on RFC, but needing some change: 

1) draft-ietf-rfc5575bis-25 - WG LC on solution to IANA closes today (6/30 -




This proposes making [128.255] change from FCFS to expert review. 

Reason: Expert Review will be required until we decide what to do about 

Flow-specification V2 (plan for fall Interim in September). 


At AD review 


1)  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps/>
draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-16.txt - 

  Planned: WG LC on Tunnel Endpoint Sub-TLV AS field going to reserved

    Query for Feedback from implementers on change 

   Status:  Awaiting new shepherd review and Alvaro's feedback.  


2) draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-06.txt

     IETF LC + AD review comments require revision: 

     Status: Waiting on the authors  revision so 

          Alvaro can schedule IESG review 


3) draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-oid-12.txt 

      Status: Awaiting AD's review (aka in Alvaro's queue)

      Question:  RTG-Review requested combination of 

           RFC5575bis base, flowspec-v6, and oid 

          to improve document would make sense to operators. 

         Should we do this? 


Ready for publication later today


4) draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-11.txt 

   Shepherd: Jie Dong

   Status: Ready for publication, waiting on the results of poll on 



Next in the Shepherd's queue: 


1)  draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-txt-01 

    ETA:  7/14/2020 


2) draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-12  

[2 cisco implementations] 

   Shepherd report ETA:  7/14/2020 


3) draft-ietf-ext-opt-param implementations 

    Shepherd Report ETA: 7/14/2020

    I need implementation people to contact me off list. 

    The implementation report needs to additional input. 


4)  draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-09.txt

      Shepherd report:  need updated draft

      ETA:  2 days after update posted 


5) draft-ietf-idr-open-policy-11.txt 

    Status: 2 implementations

    WG LC completed, Ready for publication 

    Shepherd Report ETA: 7/15/2020 


Past WG LC waiting for implementation 


1) draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn

    Status: Past WG LC, awaiting implementations 

    Note: All WG drafts not at IESG for publication 

       will be reviewed in fall 2020.  

     WG LC: 6/24 to 7/8 


WG LC during 7/14 to 7/28/2020 


1) draft-ietf-idr-rpd-05.txt 

     Status: 2 implementation 


     IPR call: 6/24 to  7/1 (started delayed due to IP response) 


2) draft-ietf-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr

     Status: 2 implementations record 


3) draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions 

     Status: 1 implementation recorded


WG LCs awaiting resolution of topics in LSR

1. draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-03.txt


Potential WG L 

1.  draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-02.txt 

   Status: Ready?  (Did I miss a call for this one?)  


Early Allocation Requests


None in progress 


Design Groups reports:  bgp-autoconf