Re: [Idr] WG adoption of draft-farrell-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt

"Susan Hares" <> Fri, 09 August 2019 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9687C1200F1 for <>; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 08:15:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.948
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vKd5TGoFRMmt for <>; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 08:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EADE12008B for <>; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 08:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: Susan Hares <>
To:, "'Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)'" <>, 'John Scudder' <>
References: <1564187800_127314@FUMC-WEB2> <046501d54ba2$6169da90$243d8fb0$> <> <> <01d001d54ddf$683c0f70$38b42e50$>
In-Reply-To: <01d001d54ddf$683c0f70$38b42e50$>
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2019 11:15:19 -0400
Message-ID: <01ca01d54ec5$421cb880$c6562980$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01CB_01D54EA3.BB0E73E0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 190809-0, 08/09/2019), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption of draft-farrell-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2019 15:15:31 -0000

Adrian and WG: 


<WG chair hat on> 

Ketan and his co-authors have been carefully working RFC7752bis 

prior to adopting in the WG.  However, given the comments to the list – 

I would like to make sure the WG is not rushed to address all known 

Issues in RFC752. 


We can usually send through registry drafts quickly. 


The WG can progress both drafts in parallel. 

<Chair hat off> 


<wg member hat on>  

I suggest we put both drafts as one of our 

Key milestones for IDR. 

<wg member hat off> 


Cheers, Sue 




From: Idr [] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 7:50 AM
To: 'Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)'; 'John Scudder'
Cc:; 'Hares Susan'
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption of draft-farrell-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt


Hi Ketan,




We’re assuming that 7752bis will take a while to progress through the working group (I might be wrong) while we could advance draft-farrel-idr-bgp-ls-registry pretty fast.


If I’m wrong we should simply roll my draft into 7752bis and be done.


If I’m right:

·         My draft runs to completion

·         7752bis needs to obsolete 7752 and the RFC that my draft will become, and the IANA section has to be updated to reflect what the registry will say at that time.





From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <> 
Sent: 08 August 2019 11:47
To: John Scudder <>; Adrian Farrel <>
Cc:; Hares Susan <>
Subject: RE: [Idr] WG adoption of draft-farrell-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt


Hi All,


I obviously support this “easing of process overhead” for BGP-LS code point allocations. Apologies for not responding earlier.


Adrian, can you please also let know if the same text needs to be also updated in draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis which is also up for WG adoption and would result in obsoleting RFC7752?





From: Idr <> On Behalf Of John Scudder
Sent: 06 August 2019 02:57
To: Adrian Farrel <>
Cc:; Hares Susan <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption of draft-farrell-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt


Well obviously I (with my “working group member” rubber mask and fright wig) kind of want them but I was holding off on saying so because that's kind of obvious.  


To reiterate for others’ benefit why I think this is worthwhile vs. early allocation:


- It reflects the author’s original intent, for whatever that’s worth. (The WG’s current intent is more important.)

- It provides the minimum of red tape, less even than early allocation.

- Because the number space is large, resolving the tension between red tape and the risk of something silly being allocated in favor of permissiveness is OK.

- Let’s not forget there’s still at least two humans in the loop (the Designated Expert and IANA).


That said, if the WG can’t generate enough enthusiasm to say “yes please” then I won’t cry, although I also won’t (with “WG co-chair” spangled epaulets and cravat on) feel as sympathetic next time someone tells me it’s too hard to get a code point.




On Aug 5, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Adrian Farrel <> wrote:


Hi WG,


I just want to rattle the bars of the cage a bit, here.


John (reliably) informs me that he had a number of conversations about the BGP-LS registries and their allocation policies: people (it seems) wanted more-relaxed rules.


It is possible that the advocates are the authors of the set of drafts that have just been pushed forward for “early allocation” and so no one cares any more.


Or it is possible that everyone is too busy.


Or, perhaps, no one wants these changes.





From: Idr < <>> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: 27 July 2019 01:37
To:  <>
Subject: [Idr] WG adoption of draft-farrell-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt


This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-farrel-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt.


Let the discussion begin and in midst of your comments please remember to include "support" or "no support".



Adrian enjoy the discussion.


Cheerily  Sue




Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7 edge, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

Idr mailing list