Re: [Idr] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-04: (with COMMENT)

Adrian Farrel <> Tue, 16 March 2021 19:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FCB83A0977; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 12:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JpIfMdfoLVUf; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 12:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F04B3A093D; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 12:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 12GJ7C1N001131; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 19:07:12 GMT
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACDD022044; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 19:07:12 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9602D22042; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 19:07:12 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 12GJ7BYY019993 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 16 Mar 2021 19:07:11 GMT
Reply-To: <>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: "'Martin Duke'" <>, "'The IESG'" <>
Cc: <>, <>, <>, "'Susan Hares'" <>, "'Jie Dong'" <>, <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 19:07:11 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <028e01d71a97$91f40030$b5dc0090$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQI5rJaL6QF3nGUXxpRbjWd7fSyvDqnB1ZUA
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No-3.895-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No-3.895-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10-3.894700-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 6otD/cJAac3xIbpQ8BhdbCwgwmow2VqdIiTd2l7lf6He6dEbvIyrxSoZ XFJfmWg7GZ4PCxIpM+b4z7jNUGQc7OP7EiQdJgdh081phgl5F/kog3IF7wM1sivFSzw3D/Z+3kg rFxtA5Nrtmb0uZ7CQjxRqLu1L1F40CuYbw9+K9RVZNYSHk3Zr0bPgPvvwZyARBthzL1hCXp574m 4IjkwvMRh57sQSxgxgE4H1WbzYWv0UsvmNfY08GRjDRPpHuqhaX6zb82IV74xhR1Y/uhfqyGpAq 14Ss3bZEokB716n4Z0y0K00ws+8HRXoagquy56/B8FxO/BQHsJqYquCrLrVwpsoi2XrUn/JjcFm PipjlBsMyrfP9j+C1SrJhLSjJRVm7AF2XkCFa7RWjpcRLrVobtZTKdt9ew+eNm4gcQqQ5TikGd8 vB6ckXP6/2ls9q2kFbsC2IuU2hR7aY/PEuSlzd9eiA5uZgi0J6Hq9RCTLxvsstHmcXeW1eBVSGW 4LjW40FYnPSoXfG8fYYdbMBRKwKJ6oP1a0mRIj
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-04: (with COMMENT)
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, 16 Mar 2021 19:07:22 -0000

Ah, looks like I responded to the Discuss and not the down-graded comment 😊

Personally, I think your Discuss was just fine. But anyway, the same answer applies to your Comment.

Many thanks,

-----Original Message-----


Upon further reflection, my concerns below don't meet the DISCUSS criteria.

I would like to understand the intent of this document a little better.

RFC 8126 subtly implies that "Expert Review" is a little laxer than
"specification required". But the guidance to experts in this draft seems to
closely match "IETF Review" (sec 4.8 of 8126) except that it allows documents
to get an allocation at an earlier stage in the process. The shepherd comment
that "RFC Required" was an alternative proposal also indicates that the intent
to become more, not less, strict. Indeed, the main change appears to be
eliminating allocations to non-IETF-stream documents.

So why not simply change the registry to "IETF Review" and allow provisional
allocations? It would be much easier to use established mechanisms and standard
definitions than rewriting them in this document. Is the SHOULD in Sec 2.1
carrying a lot of weight here?