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

"Susan Hares" <> Mon, 08 July 2019 15:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83AC61202AC; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 08:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.949
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8qZX1O_nq5CX; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 08:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (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=;
From: Susan Hares <>
To: 'John Scudder' <>, "'idr@ietf. org'" <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 11:25:43 -0400
Message-ID: <004501d535a1$68b09f30$3a11dd90$>
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
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Returning draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis to WG, new 2 week discussion period
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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. 



Sue Hares 




From: Idr [] On Behalf Of John Scudder
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 5:30 PM
To: idr@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,

On Jun 18, 2019, at 2:13 AM, Christoph Loibl <> 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.