Return-Path: 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 6D67C1270A7 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:30:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.522 X-Spam-Level: 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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com 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 Yq2qwqkUCEti for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:30:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (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; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; 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-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BJAQDLCNNY/5pdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgm5jYYEKB41qkWKQGIUvgg6GIgKDKj8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFFQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEDHRBKEgIBCA4DAwECJAQHMhQJCAEBBAESigStJoo6AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBHYs9hHSFRQWPXUGMMwGSRoF7hSqKCohViwoBHziBBFkVQTyEUoF?= =?us-ascii?q?KdYh0gQ0BAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,206,1486425600"; d="scan'208,217";a="401676228" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Mar 2017 23:29:54 +0000 Received: from XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (xch-rtp-011.cisco.com [64.101.220.151]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (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 xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (64.101.220.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 19:29:53 -0400 Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 19:29:53 -0400 From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" To: Susan Hares , "idr@ietf.org" 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$@ndzh.com> In-Reply-To: <01c101d2a362$9b0feb80$d12fc280$@ndzh.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.198] 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-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org 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 --_000_D4F88000A3C18aceeciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Sue, Since early code point assignment is a topic in another thread and the spec= ter of bureaucracy was raised, I'd like to question as to why we need an ea= rly adoption call? Since the document has already been accepted as a WG d= ocument and there is implementation interest, isn't that enough to warrant = early code point adoption? Thanks, Acee 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 comment= s on early adoption (3/21 to 3/30) Greetings IDR: As John Scudder notes draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification-10.txt will be ch= anged 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 adoptio= n for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification, and any additions they wish to ma= ke on the last WG LC (which found consensus). With more details on 2 impl= ementations (Cisco and Juniper), this will be forwarded to the IESG. If yo= u 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 comment= s he's received. Will Cisco and Juniper people, please update the wiki page on the implement= ation. The authors an provide a section in the draft (if they wish) with = implementation - which will be removed before publication. Sue Hares --_000_D4F88000A3C18aceeciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 be= en accepted as a WG document and there is implementation interest, isn’t that enough to warrant early code point adoption?&nb= sp;

Thanks,
Acee

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Susan Hares &l= t;shares@ndzh.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at = 7:18 PM
To: IDR List <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-g= r-notification - 1 week call for comments on early adoption (3/21 to 3/30)<= br>

Greetings IDR:

 

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

 

Given this change, the IDR WG is asked to consider e= arly code-point adoption for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification, and any ad= ditions they wish to make on the last WG LC (which found consensus). &= nbsp; 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 wik= i page on the implementation.   The authors an provide a section = in the draft (if they wish) with implementation – which will be remov= ed before publication. 

 

Sue Hares

 

 --_000_D4F88000A3C18aceeciscocom_--