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

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert,

On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 03:52:45PM +0100, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> >   * support for T/C/R bits (section 3.1)
> 
> Where do you see R bit in the latest version as per subject line ?
> 
> >       * no targets
> >       * atoms (both 4.4.1 + 4.4.2)
> 
> Implementations can clarify that,.
> 
> >      * RouterAttr_
> 
> Can you point to the text 

If the text at this URL is outdated, WGLC is going to be really hard
because how can the working group assess whether the document has been
adequately implemented and tested for interopability, if the report
contains outdated or incorrect information?

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities

Please revise the above Trac wiki as needed.

> In general I think if we start cutting any spec into N different documents
> each progressing only when there are two documented implementations of its
> optional parameters or fields it is going to be a huge mess both
> implementation wise as well as

I disagree.

> What I think matters is if not implementing optional capabilities in any
> negative way affects the core purpose of the spec. If yes I agree such
> elements should be removed before publication. But if not I see no harm to
> leave them in the WG document/RFC.

So we agree on removing substantial parts of the internet-draft?

Kind regards,

Job