IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] Returning draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis to WG, new 2 week discussion period

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Mon, 08 July 2019 15:27 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
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 83AC61202AC; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 08:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 8qZX1O_nq5CX; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 08:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-100-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D3951202CD; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 08:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=174.25.161.218;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: 'John Scudder' <jgs=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "'idr@ietf. org'" <idr@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org
References: <A68BF050-9846-4E14-918D-297548E078A2@juniper.net> <99A607F0-84C5-4D3D-99EF-36B733DE205A@tix.at> <5126B079-AD79-4645-9A90-F960A3BB20F3@tix.at> <C5C1B7D3-75C4-4113-9623-7ACB9202CFC2@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <C5C1B7D3-75C4-4113-9623-7ACB9202CFC2@juniper.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 11:25:43 -0400
Message-ID: <004501d535a1$68b09f30$3a11dd90$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0046_01D5357F.E1A3BA20"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQKrUyvrwlGZ19jA4IuhJx7es5FXKgIteUyHAk3x2dECP/FOD6TewJ1Q
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 190704-0, 07/04/2019), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/DqNXwxjk6l0xJZ-v63AFvdM71zM>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Returning draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis to WG, new 2 week discussion period
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 15:27:19 -0000

John and WG:

 

Thank you for taking care of this validation issue.   While we had agreed to limit the extensions to RFC5575, this extensions is needed to fix the validation issues in RF5575.  I strongly agree to the fix.

 

Since John has not pushed the “send” yet, I can only assume he was waiting for my response. 

 

Cheers, 

Sue Hares 

 

 

 

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Scudder
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 5:30 PM
To: idr@ietf. org
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] Returning draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis to WG, new 2 week discussion period

 

Hi All, 

 

Just to reiterate, the -17 text Christoph uploaded will be what goes forward to the IESG unless there are any objections by Friday. The diff vs. version -16 is here, https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-17.txt





On Jun 18, 2019, at 2:13 AM, Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at> wrote:

 

After some discussion on the list and also off-list I uploaded a new version of the draft (-17) that seems to have enough support from the WG (basically what John suggested initially). If there are very strong arguments against this change, please suggest a different fix to the problem John pointed out. John wanted to keep the discussion open until 28th June.

 

Thanks to Christoph and the other authors for jumping on this.

 

—John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email