Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification - 1 week call for comments on early adoption (3/21 to 3/30)

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <> Wed, 22 March 2017 23:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D67C1270A7 for <>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yq2qwqkUCEti for <>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15703126C83 for <>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=8445; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1490225411; x=1491435011; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=mcBm0fy/Jf3f0dByx3wPRwGxfQiQL35TBjCFZFqTPx0=; b=Iqzv23ZkxvkGuif+pEvTUVjC9j6Og+/f2+5CeVbwJByOXWxykG6RGLPf rfpNtT4clWeewL3m9g2aK4BznHK3vNA3KjMyRBRgXvsRrXNBteFM1+l/F woQdqcaDooXEKtCcJjRljsNstu7oHTKndvfnBf/RyCNv+6GtQxr4EB+Nb M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,206,1486425600"; d="scan'208,217";a="401676228"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Mar 2017 23:29:54 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v2MNTsfb004792 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 22 Mar 2017 23:29:54 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 19:29:53 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 19:29:53 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: Susan Hares <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification - 1 week call for comments on early adoption (3/21 to 3/30)
Thread-Index: AdKjYemMcYaL/ySSRFieixhO0TATbgAAkkqA
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 23:29:53 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <01c101d2a362$9b0feb80$d12fc280$>
In-Reply-To: <01c101d2a362$9b0feb80$d12fc280$>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D4F88000A3C18aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification - 1 week call for comments on early adoption (3/21 to 3/30)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 23:30:13 -0000

Hi Sue,

Since early code point assignment is a topic in another thread and the specter of bureaucracy was raised, I'd like to question as to why we need an early adoption call?  Since the document  has already been accepted as a WG document and there is implementation interest, isn't that enough to warrant early code point adoption?


From: Idr <<>> on behalf of Susan Hares <<>>
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 7:18 PM
To: IDR List <<>>
Subject: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification - 1 week call for comments on early adoption (3/21 to 3/30)

Greetings IDR:

As John Scudder notes draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification-10.txt  will be changed to have no suggested value.

   IANA is requested to assign a new subcode in the "BGP Cease
   NOTIFICATION message subcodes" registry.  The suggested name for the
   code point is "Hard Reset".  The suggested value is 9.

Given this change, the IDR WG is asked to consider early code-point adoption for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification, and any additions they wish to make on the last WG LC (which found consensus).   With more details on 2 implementations (Cisco and Juniper), this will be forwarded to the IESG.  If you wish to send any additional comments, since John is a co-authors - please send them to me or to Jie Dong.   Jie will provide me a summary of comments he's received.

Will Cisco and Juniper people, please update the wiki page on the implementation.   The authors an provide a section in the draft (if they wish) with implementation - which will be removed before publication.

Sue Hares