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

Jared Mauch <> Tue, 01 November 2016 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 485701294BB for <>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:23:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3cbri3wLcLB5 for <>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:23:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:3f4::5]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C53E12947C for <>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:23:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2603:3015:3603:8e00:51e0:59a6:676c:7860] (unknown [IPv6:2603:3015:3603:8e00:51e0:59a6:676c:7860]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A15065407BA; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 13:23:14 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\))
From: Jared Mauch <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 13:23:13 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Robert Raszuk <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF IDR Working Group <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Working group adoption call for draft-snijders-idr-deprecate-30-31-129
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 17:23:17 -0000

> On Nov 1, 2016, at 11:14 AM, Robert Raszuk <> wrote:
> > even if the implementation is compatible with said specification
> Well I think this is completely different problem regardless on how the types/codepoints will be allocated. 
> > Maybe a pragmatic example will help clarify the situation: If IANA
> > assigns Path Attribute 30 as early allocation of
> > draft-chen-idr-geo-coordinates-03
> That was not what I have tried to express ... I suggested to assign all detected points to the drafts they belong as early allocation rather then to deprecate them. Result is the same - geo will not be allocated code point which is already used. 
> So is 32 final code point for Large or early allocated one. If what LC got is final one why geo would need to ask for early allocation vs final one :) ? 

My suggestion is that authors should promptly request attributes and disclose which ones they’re using in testing for documentation.  It’s always easier to help find “who broke the internet” if it’s written down somewhere vs tracking down BGP updates, but both have been done for years.

None of this seems unreasonable, but some of the positions coming from you (Robert) seem to be outside of the WG and industry documented norms.  I saw a lot of this during the -large- vs -wide- discussion and found it troubling.  I’m personally grateful for the WG chairs in that discussion, as well as here in highlighting what is outside the WG process/norms.

- Jared