IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] Working group adoption call for draft-snijders-idr-deprecate-30-31-129

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Tue, 01 November 2016 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
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 CD61E12946B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:30:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 dGd-PygvzGI5 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:30:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05708129463 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:30:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 52DDC1E337; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 12:32:58 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 12:32:58 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>
Message-ID: <20161101163258.GG10519@pfrc.org>
References: <169A4C1A-302E-4FE0-841A-ADA63E812E1F@juniper.net> <20161101144036.GB10519@pfrc.org> <20161101162055.GA75985@shrubbery.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161101162055.GA75985@shrubbery.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/F3X7atKWHuRnsM5WthwlEMRdSZU>
Cc: IETF IDR Working Group <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Working group adoption call for draft-snijders-idr-deprecate-30-31-129
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 16:30:28 -0000

On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 04:20:55PM +0000, heasley wrote:
> Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 10:40:36AM -0400, Jeffrey Haas:
> > 2b. Some of these things are early implementations that are against drafts
> > that aren't fully mature.  This means there will be versioning issues.
> > Either the code point gets re-used and deals with the versioning problem or
> > the code point needs deprecation.
> > 
> > And even then, the fact that there's an early implementation means that
> > eventually a code point is needed.
> 
> shouldnt that implementation be done with 255 AND, regardless of an early
> allocation, never leave the lab?  meaning that versioning is unnecessary,
> in this scenario.

To be clear, I have a strong opinion about what should be done to not get us
into a squatting situation.  I submitted a draft that gives a proposal to
hopefully not get us into that situation again.

However, 2b is intended to cover the situation we're in today.  

-- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email