Re: [Idr] Thoughts on

"Susan Hares" <> Thu, 23 March 2017 18:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E118F1315E7 for <>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:18:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.946
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nd9GWU7KeeKA for <>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:18:15 -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 692F3129BA1 for <>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: Susan Hares <>
To: 'Jeffrey Haas' <>
Cc: 'Eric C Rosen' <>, "'John G. Scudder'" <>,
References: <048701d29cd9$15204b80$3f60e280$> <022201d29ce6$ffb2ba40$ff182ec0$> <> <02dc01d2a25b$a1eca590$e5c5f0b0$> <> <> <> <050901d2a3fd$734b3e10$59e1ba30$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 14:13:07 -0400
Message-ID: <001f01d2a401$1fc173a0$5f445ae0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHgLJVhftftdlZ2OeQGM5dxbx7ZtQIfusEjApalZLoB3VIuCQJnQvCHApVdmPIBwb1GPgECN7t0AgoLdiyhBLL5QA==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Thoughts on
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 18:18:17 -0000



- If flagging for more eye review is the case, then Job's suggestion is the
way forward.  It works for most YANG modules. 
- If having the expertise to review the "flag" is the issue,  1 WG being in
charge of the situation will suffice with the current setup. 
- if cross-review in all BGP working group is issue - then try my registries
proposal + IETF consensus. 
- if distrust of a single answer from WG shepherd, WG chair or set of WG
chairs - this draft + Eric's suggestion for who can review. 

If we can define the largest concern(s), let's we could start with that


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Haas [] 
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 2:11 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: 'Eric C Rosen'; 'John G. Scudder';
Subject: Re: [Idr] Thoughts on

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 01:46:39PM -0400, Susan Hares wrote:
> 4)      On code point squatting, operators had real problems with the
> current situation.   Job said "automatic checks on drafts",  Sue said
> Standard + DE of BGP chairs where IETF Consensus wins" - Got any 
> alternate solutions.  Got any alternate suggestions?

Wearing my work process hat, the issue is flagging when something needs more

IETF process already gives us the necessary voice in how stuff works for
allocation, I think.  It's less we need a panel of designated experts, it's
more that once something has been noticed, many voices will suggest doing
the right thing.

-- Jeff