Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-06.txt (2/4/2022 to 2/18/2022)

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Job,

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-rpd-15#page-8 defines
two new atoms and documents its implementation. Does this mean that atoms
from the original spec are to be removed ? To me this proves that core of
the spec is extensible which is a feature not a bug.

Thx a lot,
R.

On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 5:42 PM Job Snijders <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear Sue, others,
>
> Thank you for your message.
>
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 11:30:40AM -0500, Susan Hares wrote:
> > Job:
> >
> > <WG Chair>
> > Thank you for letting me know there are broken links
> >  on the implementation page.  I believe I have addressed these issues.
> > Please reload your page and let me know if there are more.
> >
> > I hope you will provide feedback on atoms 1-8
> > as optional  features that are not implemented.
> >
> > In the past, the IDR has made the following choices on
> > 1) remove from specification (knowing may come back as a BIS)
> > 2) hold the draft for implementations of atoms 1-8.
> > 3) keep optional features in the text, but note lack of
> >     implementations  (rare, but possible if WG desires).
> > <WG chair off>
>
>
> As 'Atoms' appear to be a core aspect of Wide Communities, so it seems
> quite awkward to publish this document - without any implementation of
> the concept of Atoms!
>
> To me it seems that 'option 2 - hold the draft for implementation' is
> the simplest path forward, or as secondary choice 'remove from spec'.
>
> Publication of internet-drafts which lack implementations, in my opinion
> sets dangerous precedent for IDR; I hope the WG appreciates my
> insistence on this matter.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>