Re: [Idr] status - incremental 4/8/2020 -

Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Wed, 08 April 2020 16:02 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 1936B3A0C9C for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 09:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.347
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.398, 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 62S_ip1dkeA3 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 09:02:52 -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 F33883A0C93 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 09:02:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=166.170.25.188;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: "'Acee Lindem \(acee\)'" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, <idr@ietf.org>
References: <008901d60da2$74031370$5c093a50$@ndzh.com> <DDB167A3-977A-4815-AE9B-C5D404816CAE@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <DDB167A3-977A-4815-AE9B-C5D404816CAE@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 12:02:48 -0400
Message-ID: <00c501d60dbf$26a17b40$73e471c0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00C6_01D60D9D.9F935DB0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQJSXj8xSpKU3KWOYHHPr+fE+FRy4gF9kCecp2rUGyA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 200407-0, 04/07/2020), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Dy81cHTAgWMTRBVWqr9gK0gmsl8>
Subject: Re: [Idr] status - incremental 4/8/2020 -
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: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 16:02:54 -0000

Acee:

 

My understanding is that the authors need to address the issues that Alvaro raised.     See email on the subject on 2/21/2019. 

 

Keyur said he would get on it on 2/21.  Life may be challenged.    The other option is to Ping Gunter or Sri.   I’ll ping them again today.   

 

Maybe it will raise the urgency and they can deal with it while we are offline 

 

Sue 

 

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 9:00 AM
To: Susan Hares; idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] status - incremental 4/8/2020 -

 

Hi Sue, 

One clarification… 

 

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 8:40 AM
To: IDR List <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] status - incremental 4/8/2020 -

 

IDR WG:

 

A little status to read with your coffee this morning.   We have an interim at 13:00 UTC (9:00 EDT,  6:00 PDT, 21:00 Bejing time) 

 

Please let me know if I’ve missed any updates. 

 

Cheers, Sue 

 

---------

At IESG in IETF LC 

1) draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-19.txt – 

    Shepherd: John Scudder 

    Status:  IETF LC ended, IESG telechat: 4/15 

    IESG Publication request: 7/9/2019 

   2  AD Reviews [8/2-9/10/2019, [1/17-1/23/2020]

   

2) draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-08.txt

     [Shepherd: Susan Hares]

     Status:  3rd round of AD revisions  

     IESG Publication requested:  10/15/2019

     IETF WG LC:  6 days  

 

--------------

AD review – authors need to respond 

1)  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps/> draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-14 - sent to IESG 

[Waiting 47 days] 

 

So, this draft requires a response from the authors to Alvaro? It hasn’t gone to full IESG yet – right? We have a couple LSR drafts with a normative reference. 

 

Thanks,

Acee

 

2) draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-05.txt 

[Waiting 57 days] 

------------

WG past WG LC – stuck  waiting for implementation reports on wiki

[reported to have 2 implementations, but no details on wiki] 

 

1) draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param

2) draft-idr-eag-distribution-09.txt 

---------

Drafts stuck post WG LC – waiting for minor edits 

1) draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis.05.txt  - 

----

Flow specification drafts in WG LC 

 

1) Draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-10.txt

   Status: restarted [4/8 to 4/22]

   Status: IESG desires, but is it ready? 

   Needed:  implementation reports 

 

2)  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-oid/> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-oid-11

    Status:  3/13/ to 4/13 

    Status: light response, please comment 

    Authors:  Please fill out implementation report 

 

-----------

WG Adoption calls: 

 

   1) Draft-hujun-idr-bgp-ipsec

       WG adoption:  3/30-4/13

        Shepherd: Susan Hares 

        Comment: only 1 response, heading toward “no consensus”

 

2) draft-hujun-idr-bgp-ipsec-transport-mode

     WG Adoption: 3/30 – 4/13

      Shepherd: Susan Hares 

     Comment: only 1 response, heading toward “no consensus”

 

3) draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03.txt 

    WG adoption: 3/30 – 4/13 

     Shepherd: Susan Hares 

    Comment: Positive response: Heading toward WG Adoption 

 

Request for input:

----------------------

draft-scharf-tcpm-yang-tcp-04

 

Proposed WG LC drafts for flow-specification that were on hold: 

-------------------------------------------

[Authors should contact chairs] 

 

1)  draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-interfaceset-05 – 

WG notes indicated this might go ahead without flow-specification v2 

 

2) draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-10 – 

WG discussion needs to occur on whether flowspecification 

 

 

Proposed WG LCs (3/30 and 4/8) 

----------------

1) draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-08 – on hold pending  revision -09

2)  draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn-13 – in slides for 4/8

 

 

Proposed Adoption calls  

-----------------------

draft-cl-idr-bgp-ext-com-registry-udpate-00.txt