Re: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call (6/6 to 6/20)

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Sent: 08 June 2022 16:45

Tom:

In IDR WG, we try to link any earlier drafts to the published draft.
Just an fyi…

<tp>
Sue

Of course, it is just a matter of knowing it it there and looking for it, which one AD did not manage:-(  Best avoided if we can, and while I would change the title of an I-D at adoption - not needed here - I resist changes to file names.

Tom Petch

Sue

From: tom petch <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 11:43 AM
To: Jordan Head <jhead=[e-mail]>; Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call (6/6 to 6/20)



From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Jordan Head <jhead=[e-mail]<mailto:jhead=[e-mail]>>

Sent: 07 June 2022 20:12



Hi Acee, Les,



Good suggestion, happy to make the title more explicit on the next version of the draft.



<tp>



Loading up an identifier with lots of semantics rendering it cumbersome is  a pet hate of mine, but you have already done that:-(  At least it is only an ephemeral name that vanishes and has no relevance once a specification becomes an RFC



Changing the name to another one is even worse.  It makes it hard to track what the history of an I-D is.  You need to know where to look on the IETF website to find the old names.  I have known ADs who failed the test and did not find the early versions of an I-D at Last Call.



In this case,  it could make it hard to find the discussion about adoption which seems to be as much against as for.  I echo the thought that the protocols have got themselves into a tangle, too many ways of doing the same thing, and while the marketplace will decide, that can take several years and leave some frustrated that what was obviously the best approach has fallen by the wayside.



Tom Petch



Thanks



From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=[e-mail]<mailto:acee=[e-mail]>>

Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 10:45 AM

To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg=[e-mail]<mailto:ginsberg=[e-mail]>>, Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call (6/6 to 6/20)



[External Email. Be cautious of content]



I agree – for many of us, “fr” will always bring frame relay to mind first…

Acee



From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg=[e-mail]<mailto:ginsberg=[e-mail]>>

Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 10:42 AM

To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, IDR List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

Subject: RE: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call (6/6 to 6/20)



I also support adoption.



Regarding the draft name, “fr” is quite cryptic and somewhat ambiguous.



“draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-flood-reflection” would align the name with the LSR draft – but if that is considered too long maybe “draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-freflect” ??



   Les





From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)

Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 5:32 AM

To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call (6/6 to 6/20)



I support WG adoption – the corresponding LSR draft has completed WG last call and is awaiting AD review.



Thanks,

Acee



From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>> on behalf of Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>

Date: Monday, June 6, 2022 at 5:28 PM

To: IDR List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>

Subject: [Idr] draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call (6/6 to 6/20)



This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01.txt



https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CafxHn3pbZysrIyVSxj84fABHpIaBa6N9ARiX1QpzY1aZZA_zdNvXbzlu0c5O_XryeexWrPa3CclpsKqYxOn2MWio074HA$>



  This document defines one new BGP-LS (BGP Link-State) TLV for

   Flood Reflection to match the ISIS TLV for flood reduction.



   The draft is short (5 total pages).



Since this BGP-LS feature has been adopted by IS-IS,

Please consider





1.       Is there any technical difficulty with adding this to the BGP-LS code points?

2.   Is this draft ready for publication?

3.   Does this addition help operational networks.



Cheers, Sue Hares











Juniper Business Use Only