Re: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt

"Susan Hares" <> Fri, 04 November 2016 17:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95DC5129467; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.945
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.945 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hFIRrNbljGj4; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FA481293F3; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: "Susan Hares" <>
To: "'Jeffrey Haas'" <>
References: <112dc01d235fd$57f9c370$07ed4a50$> <> <117ea01d23611$a28513e0$e78f3ba0$> <> <> <> <> <043a01d236b9$f07058f0$d1510ad0$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 13:27:54 -0400
Message-ID: <076001d236c0$c790c4e0$56b24ea0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQH7vYX/r5lvDTiDOvRZn6NWFj+MugIVEsE7AusR2FECKfMMFwHKxisSAhTYCDcBtVkRzgJ+o7uXAuC5phyf5RLOAA==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 'IETF IDR WG' <>,
Subject: Re: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 17:30:13 -0000


My understanding of the process - is that you do not need to have an RFC to
deem something historical.  You simply do a WG LC on historical and then
pass it to the IESG.  


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Haas [] 
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 12:49 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: 'Geoff Huston'; 'IETF IDR WG';
Subject: Re: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt


On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:38:56PM -0400, Susan Hares wrote:
> Should atomic-aggregate be deemed "historical" at this point?  This 
> can happen in parallel to this work.

I'd argue, yes.

You might recall some of the reasoning as fallout to my introduction to IETF
and the resultant churn in the 1771bis work as we tried to get the feature
to make sense. :-)

While I'm happy to write such a document at some point, it's something
that's very low priority for the WG.  In the meantime, I'll just keep
pushing back on things that refer to it.

-- Jeff