Re: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call (6/6 to 6/20)

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

Tom -

Linking changed file names is all done automagically by Data Tracker. So I don't share your concern.
I wouldn't change file names repeatedly or whimsically, but I think there is a good motivation here.

Regarding discussion of whether to replace BGP-LS with something else, I believe IDR is the right place to have that discussion - but not in this thread.

   Les

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Idr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of tom petch
> Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 8:51 AM
> To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; Jordan Head
> <jhead=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call (6/6 to
> 6/20)
> 
> From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 08 June 2022 16:45
> 
> Tom:
> 
> In IDR WG, we try to link any earlier drafts to the published draft.
> Just an fyi...
> 
> <tp>
> Sue
> 
> Of course, it is just a matter of knowing it it there and looking for it, which
> one AD did not manage:-(  Best avoided if we can, and while I would change
> the title of an I-D at adoption - not needed here - I resist changes to file
> names.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> Sue
> 
> From: tom petch <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 11:43 AM
> To: Jordan Head <jhead=[e-mail]>; Susan Hares
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call (6/6 to
> 6/20)
> 
> 
> 
> From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf
> of Jordan Head
> <jhead=[e-mail]<mailto:jhead=40juniper.net@dmarc.i
> etf.org>>
> 
> Sent: 07 June 2022 20:12
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Acee, Les,
> 
> 
> 
> Good suggestion, happy to make the title more explicit on the next version
> of the draft.
> 
> 
> 
> <tp>
> 
> 
> 
> Loading up an identifier with lots of semantics rendering it cumbersome is  a
> pet hate of mine, but you have already done that:-(  At least it is only an
> ephemeral name that vanishes and has no relevance once a specification
> becomes an RFC
> 
> 
> 
> Changing the name to another one is even worse.  It makes it hard to track
> what the history of an I-D is.  You need to know where to look on the IETF
> website to find the old names.  I have known ADs who failed the test and did
> not find the early versions of an I-D at Last Call.
> 
> 
> 
> In this case,  it could make it hard to find the discussion about adoption which
> seems to be as much against as for.  I echo the thought that the protocols
> have got themselves into a tangle, too many ways of doing the same thing,
> and while the marketplace will decide, that can take several years and leave
> some frustrated that what was obviously the best approach has fallen by the
> wayside.
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf
> of "Acee Lindem (acee)"
> <acee=[e-mail]<mailto:acee=[e-mail].o
> rg>>
> 
> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 10:45 AM
> 
> To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
> <ginsberg=[e-mail]<mailto:ginsberg=40cisco.com@dmar
> c.ietf.org>>, Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 
> Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call (6/6 to
> 6/20)
> 
> 
> 
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> 
> 
> 
> I agree - for many of us, "fr" will always bring frame relay to mind first...
> 
> Acee
> 
> 
> 
> From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
> <ginsberg=[e-mail]<mailto:ginsberg=40cisco.com@dmar
> c.ietf.org>>
> 
> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 10:42 AM
> 
> To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Susan Hares
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, IDR List
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 
> Subject: RE: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call (6/6 to
> 6/20)
> 
> 
> 
> I also support adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding the draft name, "fr" is quite cryptic and somewhat ambiguous.
> 
> 
> 
> "draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-flood-reflection" would align the name with the
> LSR draft - but if that is considered too long maybe "draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-
> isis-freflect" ??
> 
> 
> 
>    Les
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf
> Of Acee Lindem (acee)
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 5:32 AM
> 
> To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
> Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call (6/6 to
> 6/20)
> 
> 
> 
> I support WG adoption - the corresponding LSR draft has completed WG last
> call and is awaiting AD review.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Acee
> 
> 
> 
> From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:idr-
> [e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>> on behalf of Susan
> Hares
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3
> cmailto:[e-mail]>>>
> 
> Date: Monday, June 6, 2022 at 5:28 PM
> 
> To: IDR List
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]
> >>>
> 
> Subject: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call (6/6 to 6/20)
> 
> 
> 
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01.txt
> 
> 
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-
> fr/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-
> head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr/__;!!NEt6yMaO-
> gk!CafxHn3pbZysrIyVSxj84fABHpIaBa6N9ARiX1QpzY1aZZA_zdNvXbzlu0c5O_
> XryeexWrPa3CclpsKqYxOn2MWio074HA$>
> 
> 
> 
>   This document defines one new BGP-LS (BGP Link-State) TLV for
> 
>    Flood Reflection to match the ISIS TLV for flood reduction.
> 
> 
> 
>    The draft is short (5 total pages).
> 
> 
> 
> Since this BGP-LS feature has been adopted by IS-IS,
> 
> Please consider
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.       Is there any technical difficulty with adding this to the BGP-LS code
> points?
> 
> 2.   Is this draft ready for publication?
> 
> 3.   Does this addition help operational networks.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers, Sue Hares
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr