Re: [Idr] Adoption Call on DT document (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-autoconf-considerations-00.txt) [3/10/2021 to 3/31/2021]

["Majumdar, Kausik" <[e-mail]>]

As a contributor, I also support the WG adoption.

My comments to the below questions along the line with Acce.


  1.  do you think this represents a good set of requirements for bgp autoconf protocol in the data center?


Yes


  1.  Do you think the document should remove any requirements or add an requirements?

I don’t see that we need to remove any requirements at this time what we have reviewed and captured. But definitely, we can review one more based on the input from others.


  1.  Do you think the review of the protocols should be moved to another document?


              To me, it is easier to have it in the same document, but if others prefer to move in another document I am fine.



  1.  Should a IDR DT create the requirements for non-Data Center deployments prior to starting work on a BGP auto-configuration protocol? If so, should a DT start these requirements in parallel?


              I think we should.  Yes, DT should start on these requirements.


Regards,
Kausik

From: Idr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 4:31 AM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption Call on DT document (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-autoconf-considerations-00.txt) [3/10/2021 to 3/31/2021]

As a contributor, I support WG adoption.  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌  ‌
External (acee=[e-mail]<mailto:acee=[e-mail]>)
  Report This Email<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/report?id=Y29tbXNjb3BlL2thdXNpay5tYWp1bWRhckBjb21tc2NvcGUuY29tL2E3YTA2NjJjMTY4NGU3MDU0YTAxYWQxNjc5Y2I0NmJmLzE2MTU4OTQyNzguNzc=#key=e9a0acc9b2cf7a49b85c827b1c721118>  FAQ<https://www.inky.com/banner-faq/>  Protection by INKY<https://www.inky.com>

As a contributor, I support WG adoption.

From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 1:04 PM
To: IDR List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [Idr] Adoption Call on DT document (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-autoconf-considerations-00.txt) [3/10/2021 to 3/31/2021]

Greetings:

This is an adoption/feedback call for the DT team document:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-autoconf-considerations/<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1A0kHOz5A99Y7Y3RA3G77hJqKB9MBYdy14di4w9NnTD1Ojy-jew28bad9PgDoVnFYvQkbsJsmb3gx39vdoHc1dRWP5ewAe0wnOUDG1f1r_wTyXTrE22oiTF88O5z_W72fzrGUCb0KlR34qHzO_IVJR8eDc9QvIitnTIh7LB4RT4brJ_oZXOtCX6bxmvNCETc_hdPFXtgajNG7A3TtjRsUp1NRsqVsaL7idWeTo18nRIY5M4k7CDCzCPbgxvipvKTL55u8gTAwDPgbY_27UdhG6GuAOASHK0hiNxCXvVXg7iWbU2-Fes4VvoSz3s49my3H/https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-bgp-autoconf-considerations%2F>

This call for comments will run for 3 weeks.

In your feedback please let us know:


  1.  do you think this represents a good set of requirements for bgp autoconf protocol in the data center?
Yes


  1.  Do you think the document should remove any requirements or add an requirements?

Not at this time.


  1.  Do you think the review of the protocols should be moved to another document?

I don’t think it is necessary but wouldn’t be strongly opposed.


  1.  Should a IDR DT create the requirements for non-Data Center deployments prior to starting work on a BGP auto-configuration protocol? If so, should a DT start these requirements in parallel?

I believe it makes sense to use the same DT.

Thanks,
Acee

Cheers, Sue Hares