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

[Jared Mauch <[e-mail]>]

> On Nov 1, 2016, at 11:14 AM, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> 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