Re: [Idr] WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-14

Hi,

> There is an unresolved question from Randy Bush as to whether the
document should really be
> Standards Track or some other status (Informational and BCP were both
mentioned).

I explained the rationale for keeping it as Standards Track document.

There is also recent outstanding question from Randy supposedly questioning
the name of section 4.3. I personally do not see anything wrong with the
current name.

Thx,
R.

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:57 PM, John G. Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> wrote:

> An update on this WGLC.
>
> Tl;dr: Before we proceed forward we need to see the promised IPR
> declaration from Cisco, we need to hear back from Stephane about IPR, and
> we need to close on the question Randy raised regarding document status.
>
> 1. IPR
>
> Serpil Bayraktar let me know a few days ago that Cisco intends to disclose
> IPR. The disclosure hasn't been filed yet, we will not progress the
> document until it has been filed and the WG has an opportunity to consider
> the filing. I would like to encourage the WG to wait until the filing is
> done before discussing further -- while we wait you may want to pass the
> time reviewing the IETF's policy on what is, and is not, in-scope for us to
> consider when discussing IPR in our work.
>
> Authors Robert Raszuk, Bruno Decraene, Eric Aman, Kevin Wang, and Adam
> Chappell have said they didn't know of any IPR. Christian Cassar said "I
> was not aware of any IPR. I will work with Serpil and we will get back."
> Stephane Litkowski hasn't answered.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=
> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection
>
> 2. Other
>
> Support from Job Snijders, Nick Hilliard, Rajiv Asati, Serpil Bayraktar,
> Manish Bhardwaj, Keyur Patel, Jeff Tantsura, Acee Lindem
>
> Review by Job Snijders, largely about route recursion, led to a discussion
> and update to the document.
>
> Note that much of the support was expressed before the IPR issue came up,
> and it's the individuals' prerogative to change their minds if they see
> fit. Support was for version -15 of the document, though, or at least was
> expressed subsequent to the discussion and publication of -15.
>
> There is an unresolved question from Randy Bush as to whether the document
> should really be Standards Track or some other status (Informational and
> BCP were both mentioned).
>
> Thanks,
>
> --John
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 2017, at 8:30 PM, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > (This is the first of a series of WGLCs as we work to clear backlog. We
> will stagger the WGLCs somewhat.)
> >
> > A working group last call has been requested for
> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-14. Please reply to the list
> with your comments. As usual note we cannot advance the draft without
> participation from the group. Please get your comments in before October
> 20, 2017.
> >
> > Authors, please confirm that any relevant IPR has been disclosed.
> >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.
> ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Didr-2Dbgp-2Doptimal-2Droute-
> 2Dreflection-2D14&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=hLt5iDJpw7ukqICc0hoT7A&m=2T8sWKXOuk1R-CTDDPFM8HO_
> a6AbOHGOseJ81Ht9_4Q&s=yunFv1zXtd-bLp5IQGspvPZQYpLtAFtcXdjv_vA4-rU&e=
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --John
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>