[Idr] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-04: (with COMMENT)

Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 22 March 2021 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietf.org
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 577E93A1671; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 07:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, Jie Dong <jie.dong@huawei.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, jie.dong@huawei.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.27.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
Message-ID: <161642388684.32091.12908117807432626906@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 07:38:07 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Q8l6DpJVsaHW_h5ODdmPaDOplMY>
Subject: [Idr] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 14:38:07 -0000

Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Adrian, WG,

I'm not always sure what are the appropriate DISCUSS criteria for a process
document. I hesitated and in the end chose NoObj. I'd nevertheless really
appreciate if we could discuss theses points.

The Document allows for an Expert to consider a request which doesn't arise
from a WG document (or an AD sponsored one) and does so by using SHOULD in the
following:
   2.  The Designated Experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise
       from I-Ds that have already been accepted as Working Group
       documents or that are planned for progression as AD Sponsored
       documents in the absence of a suitably chartered Working Group.
and confirms that in:
   4.  If the document is not adopted by the IDR Working Group (or its
       successor),
I am perfectly fine with that.
However, would it be fair to expect from the Expert that he/she communicates to
the list (as part of step 4) the "valid reasons" and "full implications" of
agreeing to consider this particular request?

Also, it isn't clear to me whether an Expert can refuse an allocation to be
made and what would be the criteria for supporting such decision. I do read
   5.  The Designated Experts MUST then review the assignment requests
       on their technical merit.
This could potentially result in a refusal, but I'm not sure in fact, but if it
allows for a refusal then that's very vague. There is of course point 6. but
that's given. Another way (not completely equivalent) of saying this is that I
get the impression that except in obvious cases (e.g., 6), all requests will be
granted. Is that the case?

Thank you
-m