Re: [Idr] Review of draft-abraitis-bgp-version-capability-07

Alvaro Retana <> Sat, 22 August 2020 12:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EC5D3A0815; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 05:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id asInM0-hOusb; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 05:15:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::531]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A95F3A0812; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 05:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w14so3276757eds.0; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 05:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IkaSfTuTy5sOKJjo1iMbPs+S4ALDPvuKpDnWHsV3eG0=; b=tXgA8HuTcRNjPaWE2rZcvxXc76Y2FDBTvy4uW8Bh+A0R6+Z8A69xeIzauYvEMNRxGq yXqTtFarwOhmBuGDrEBvLCGAENJxX5NNhBmmXQAoXyaMnh4d7B2n4E13HD8U+TjRylDr t8UMC3NDewRSyxm+YXXR8ilbWEDS4DFCCJxK8C+ctJSTB3VuBf5uHbM0HBcMNPfJMls9 BF5EnlW1pIWG7lDqA3ntzDt+FisVnFWWtC2ruVk3NyIuImUk3V2nlzRhbPd279U1HqSd u4Uem5qYt4TIumxmd4FMYnmznk3VvY8yKxRq/Fi4fo115GLo26JMVKdmzEVIpbXZqxl4 6MCA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IkaSfTuTy5sOKJjo1iMbPs+S4ALDPvuKpDnWHsV3eG0=; b=jnvmzFocctT+ZzitGJxCIgLFJj/Mrs/13+9jxCpMdj7VDXzQEdRG19+D7rgKYgFt/h x9KCDQ5H+a40Kj4Ph5Kiz4xKy9jdtKgS38D7LhFDkIaj4tid5dOaPa3GwO0d4/HAqOIu bYO4BLXcjKyqXKvkAhl33YzMDc/FZoJrPRj2ZLrsCF2wU+P4+nTzMA8iTgT27r1BSSyC YrrQflYI4rpqX12SUNpxYxwa2HnEpCtuaXdfyU9RyUoc27egheVQR63OnU5G6CMeS/NY zHLhStPxz3RoGV4yfy5R984vYR7ooZhB2+sNgnodd/I8EM03h1iYLNSlcAvNngQqg2UV ZyyQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530rjZzMv2UbttRFYjEat+qLcNt9KukpplGIn3pgeZ9etayMMvUi xz29ZS5r7c2vlTzZZE+N3Z19Dqk+9aGa00lNZPc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyu2gtbLIDrZybInDGuyKw5GjqhZtTYJ9UkuSsCVXcgZ7MAS3CzD1ZJJG4hv2/T/gJPWqs9UHJqmQxKiJMq+2M=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:df95:: with SMTP id b21mr6789095edy.86.1598098551281; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 05:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 05:15:50 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 05:15:50 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Robert Raszuk <>,
Cc: Donatas Abraitis <>, IDR List <>,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Review of draft-abraitis-bgp-version-capability-07
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 12:15:56 -0000

On August 21, 2020 at 5:32:57 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:



> Also I am not sure what Alvaro expects IDR and chairs to do here. To adopt
> the draft which insists on using BGP Capabilities to carry a free form text
> when there may not be rough consensus to do so ?
> Or maybe to take a problem at hand and work together to produce a solution
> which may not use BGP Capabilities at all ?
> PS. As to the use of "bypass" term I did not mean to say that this has been
> hidden in any form or shape ... quite contrary. WG says this is not good
> solution then going around WG is what I call a bypass.

Thank you for clarifying.

The Independent Submission Stream can be used (among other things) to
publish ideas that have not been adopted, or even rejected, by the
IETF.  The only IETF involvement is the rfc5742 conflict review, which
is where we are now: in short, the IESG is expected to answer whether
the work conflicts with IETF work, and make a recommendation.  See the
possible outcomes in §3/rfc5742.

Note that at this point, the work is not part of the IETF.

Even if not required by rfc5742, I decided to technically review the
document and post my comments to this list.  In reviewing the mail
archive, I didn't see an explicit call for adoption or direction from
the chairs to take the document to the ISE, just lack of interest (not
a lot of comments). So I also sent a separate note to the idr-chairs
asking for their opinion.

What do I expect?  I first expect an answer from the Chairs -- from my
last message:

   John/Sue:  What is your opinion?  Do we need time to discuss interest in

I don't expect adoption, or for the WG to take on related work...or
not.  It is for the Chairs to lead any discussion about adoption or
anything else, hence my question above.  Apart from that, I'm sure
that the ISE will appreciate any comments that can make the document

Going back to rfc5742.  Assuming that my comments (in this thread) are
addressed, I consider that the work is (obviously!) related to idr,
but that it doesn't prevent publishing (in the Independent Submission
stream).  I currently don't see active work that explicitly[*]
addresses the same type of functionality.  I would be happy to be
corrected and for the Chairs to confirm.



[*] The Operational Message could include similar functionality...I'm
sure there could be other approaches.  However, I don't see that
documented anywhere or active discussion on the list about it.