Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext [5/2 - 5/16/2018]

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sue,


> As to the 99% of BGP-LS,  that’s a question the chairs and ADs tried to
> ask the WG in 2018.   The WG did not engage on that discussion.
>

I reread the IDR charter ,,, https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/idr/about/

I did not find anything there which would justify any of the work related
to BGP-LS needs in this WG for example - topology or link state information
transport.

IMO AD should recognize the need for various non routing information
transport and steer this towards BOF and new WG creation to define new
protocol for it.. Even if rather from scratch such effort would reuse some
of the BGP features. And while it was not done up front it is not too late
now.

In order to protect the BGP stream,  the ADs/Chairs pushed for
> draft-ketana-rfc7752bis.txt (for improved error handling) and larger BGP
> messages (see raft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-30.txt).
>

Improving error handling is always good.

But how making the message larger helps to protect the BGP stream ? Its
like opening the window wider when cloud of wild insects approaches ....

Best,
R.