Re: [Idr] New version of draft-wang-idr-eag-distribution-00

I don't see why the draft has to be standalone.  I agree that it would make sense to do that as an add-on to BGP-LS if BGP-LS was already standardized, but it's not (yet).  Keeping sub-TLVs in separate documents seems like it's just doing it for the sake of creating another document.  If that's OK, why not break the bgp-ls draft into 15 separate documents, one for each sub-TLV?

As far as standardizing it, yeah, why not?  It's in several sets of vendor ppt and actual (planned & real) products, and we all know RFCs get made with far less backing.

eric

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wangzitao [mailto:wangzitao@huawei.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 4:05 AM
> To: Hannes Gredler; Jeff Tantsura
> Cc: Osborne, Eric; idr@ietf.org; Hares Susan
> Subject: RE: [Idr] New version of draft-wang-idr-eag-distribution-00
> 
> Thanks Hannes, Jeff and Eric.
> In my opinion, EAG TLV we proposed in draft-wang-idr-eag-distribution is
> just an optional choice and doesn't need to be mandatory TLV supported by
> BGP-LS, so taking this draft as standalone document works for us.
> 
> Regards!
> -Michael
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Hannes Gredler [mailto:hannes@juniper.net]
> 发送时间: 2014年10月30日 15:31
> 收件人: Jeff Tantsura
> 抄送: Osborne, Eric; wangzitao; idr@ietf.org; Hares Susan
> 主题: Re: [Idr] New version of draft-wang-idr-eag-distribution-00
> 
> real question is:
> 
> do we want to close BGP-LS base spec and submit it to IESG or leave it open
> as an eternal draft ? - IMO EAG is a useful thing hence vendors will be adding
> support for this, but can perfectly live as a standalone document,
> 
> /hannes
> 
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 06:12:28PM +0000, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> |    Hi Eric,
> |    Agree, should be treated same way as AG and included in bgp-ls,
> |    Extended Administrative Group with TLV code point 1099
> |    Cheers,
> |    Jeff
> |    From: <Osborne>, Eric <[1]eric.osborne@level3.com>
> |    Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 at 6:48 AM
> |    To: wangzitao <[2]wangzitao@huawei.com>, "[3]idr@ietf.org"
> |    <[4]idr@ietf.org>
> |    Cc: Hares Susan <[5]shares@ndzh.com>
> |    Subject: Re: [Idr] New version of
> | draft-wang-idr-eag-distribution-00
> |
> |      I skimmed it and it  looks reasonable.  Given  that it really just  says
> |      “use BGP-LS to send EAG just like we already send AG”, why not  just
> |      fold this content into bgp-ls?  The reason it’s not in bgp-ls  already
> |      is – I  suspect – just  a matter  of timing between  EAG and  bgp-ls
> |      publication.
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |      eric
> |
> |
> |
> |      From: Idr [[6]mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of wangzitao
> |      Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 9:04 PM
> |      To: [7]idr@ietf.org
> |      Cc: Hares Susan
> |      Subject: [Idr] New version of draft-wang-idr-eag-distribution-00
> |
> |
> |
> |      Hi, folks:
> |
> |      We have  submitted  a new  short  draft  to discuss  BGP  extension  for
> |      Extended admin Group
> |
> |      [8]https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-idr-eag-distribution-00
> |
> |      and requested a timeslot to present it at IETF91.
> |
> |      Please help review and comment on this short draft.
> |
> |      Thanks in advance.
> |
> |
> |
> |      Regards!
> |
> |      -Michael
> |
> | References
> |
> |    Visible links
> |    1. mailto:eric.osborne@level3.com
> |    2. mailto:wangzitao@huawei.com
> |    3. mailto:idr@ietf.org
> |    4. mailto:idr@ietf.org
> |    5. mailto:shares@ndzh.com
> |    6. mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org
> |    7. mailto:idr@ietf.org
> |    8. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-idr-eag-distribution-00
> 
> | _______________________________________________
> | Idr mailing list
> | Idr@ietf.org
> | https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr