Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-attribute-announcement dead on arrival?

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

Acee (and Sue earlier)

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 11:11:38AM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> I agree with Rob that WG adoption of large communities in no way implies that attribute scoping is not a requirement and should not also be pursued.
> 
> In fact, there may even be hope for wide communities to evolve into the long term solution.

I would honestly prefer this conversation pretends the wide community draft
doesn't exist.  People keep getting hung up on it.

This is more the general long term question.

My intention a day after Sue's response had been to scrub the list of
pending path attribute features in IDR, BESS, etc., but I've not found the
time to do that yet.

WRT large communities, the main reason I cite that conversation is not an
attempt to "beat the dead horse", but to point out what was brought up as
technical objections to such header mechanisms.  If the WG simply wants to
declare what was raised as technical objections as non-technical objections
(i.e. "we simply didn't want to") - so be it.  But that's not how the
narrative ran.

-- Jeff