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, 8 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