Re: [Idr] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Thu, 25 March 2021 13:14 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A9C3A20D7; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 06:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7g7z2E3UlALQ; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 06:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FF853A20D5; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 06:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:cd46:2bbf:5755:8854] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:cd46:2bbf:5755:8854]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E446600027; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 15:14:32 +0200 (EET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1616678072; bh=w/vK5vC9BB4YB1gNSFJfSkivBoc/N4JfhyG3taZzLMM=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=N6oxy2KRstFrLqoCultj62lLgh5zSlc7tsnn/wh3t5DCj9hui+B++wUPk6EJ4BELg TuGDgJkQJRtR468TKORN0/rHtjESOw0El2E4W5PAHqAVVV3QoORXxORtNjQwC3uKcJ 9AGnHLOI81udgXGPwyf7haAVXHCIqUQqUKuZSTCI=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <F0072E12-CD48-4164-8B36-AC1F1BBD0939@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_877C06ED-D5AA-4303-98BD-CC794EAB0C6A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 15:14:31 +0200
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB4366DC7D110C598A43514F78B5629@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry@ietf.org>, "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
References: <161661295805.2977.9359905854244102147@ietfa.amsl.com> <0dea01d720e5$57d670f0$078352d0$@olddog.co.uk> <A9CD655E-9EA9-4259-977F-460B8990DA5D@eggert.org> <MW3PR11MB4570A7F7DB70BEF35ACD716DC1629@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <MN2PR11MB4366DC7D110C598A43514F78B5629@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
X-MailScanner-ID: 1E446600027.A585C
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/PiAgPyXME6j9zCJ8KfsFaNRMo94>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 13:14:48 -0000

Hi,

On 2021-3-25, at 14:51, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
> Hence, my preference is to publish now, but we should work out how to fix this properly before we get a flood of similar documents.

that is a reasonable way forward.

To scope this potential revision of RFC7120, let's briefly make sure we capture the issues that at least IDR has identified, so someone has a starting point to work off of:

- would like early allocation for specs before they are "stable"
  - open question on what to do about non-interoperable changes?

- would like to do early allocation for non-IETF specs

- would like early allocations to not time out
  - or at least time out much later than after one year?
  - for large registries, may not need to deprecate outdated early allocations at all
  - for others, task chairs/ADs; is this workable?
    - how would we do this last point for non-IETF specs?

Thanks,
Lars