Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-abraitis-bgp-version-capability-08, to end September 25

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

> On Jan 11, 2023, at 9:22 AM, Donatas Abraitis <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> >I'm willing to receive it and potentially just throw it on the floor. I might even be willing to burn the 255 bytes of space in a buffer in my bgp peer data structure for it after running it through the same sanitizer we do for RFC 9003.
> 
> I'm confused now. In the past, we discussed that this is _very_ bad approach using Capability, now it's fine to go?

Here is the anchor in the mailarchive for the discussion when John started the adoption call:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Qxq0W3gTZXM2pHxKQAaxOVnda9Y/

John specifically noted during the adoption call:
> It’s my impression from these two threads that there’s potentially interest from the WG in tackling the problem; it’s less clear to me that the WG supports the particular design outlined in the current draft. It would be helpful if you’d address both of these when commenting, and keep in mind that as usual WG adoption of the draft wouldn't mean “this is the exact solution”, it would mean “this is a good starting point.”

The discussion points, loosely:
- Should this go into open or perhaps the operational message?
- Having this show up in "show bgp neighbor" would be handy.  Getting the contents fully correct is tricky. Lots of discussion about the stuff in the contents.  Should it be structured, or even normalized in some fashion?  URLs/URIs were discussed as options.
- Stick this in the bgp yang model when we have it.
- Comparative point that LLDP or other discovery mechanisms can carry this stuff. 
- I recommended extended optional params back in october 2020. :-)

At no point in the thread was there discussion about moving the data contents to an optional parameter.  I suspect you misinterpreted the need to use the extended optional parameter feature (RFC 9072) as that suggestion.  The reason to use RFC 9072 is it lets us encode more stuff in optional parameters... the only user of which is capabilities.

I'll also note that the thread fizzled out in a bit of 2020 when everyone was rather emotionally exhausted due to the pandemic.  If your desire is to try again to have the WG pick up the work, that's reasonable.  My impression of the adoption thread was "generally supportive, but a lot of debate what the contents should be".  We're seeing that again in the revivified thread.

-- Jeff