Re: [Idr] [Ext] Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-long-lived-gr-06: (with DISCUSS)

[Amanda Baber <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

IANA is OK with this document taking over the entries. It's replacing draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence. 

Also, because those allocations came from the registry's First Come First Served range, they can't expire. They're early, but they're also permanent. The temporary-but-renewable early allocation scheme defined by RFC 7120 can only be used where RFC publication would otherwise be required.

Thanks (and apologies for top-posting),
Amanda

On 8/9/23, 7:32 PM, "iesg on behalf of Paul Wouters via Datatracker" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-idr-long-lived-gr-06: Discuss

    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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!PtGJab4!8BRFnLFIWYp6ISqcPMClLlXjmBVNcs1I3KJxYKa0ic6-mj5Omw85vPqANOM6mA1crUQKQSbJc5U05p8eBkexc3w$ [ietf[.]org] 
    for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-long-lived-gr/__;!!PtGJab4!8BRFnLFIWYp6ISqcPMClLlXjmBVNcs1I3KJxYKa0ic6-mj5Omw85vPqANOM6mA1crUQKQSbJc5U05p8e4DRTRzs$ [datatracker[.]ietf[.]org]



    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    DISCUSS:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    These two DISCUSSes should be easy to resolve :)


            The following text in Section 4.2 of the GR specification [RFC4724] no longer applies:
            [...]
            and the following procedures are specified instead:
            [...]

    Shouldn't this be indicated with an Updates: 4724 clause ?



    The well-known BGP community "LLGR_STALE" and "NO_LLGR" used by this document
    are listed in the IANA registry as defined by draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence
    which expired in 2019.  If this is an early allocation, this value might vanish
    from the registry ? I'm not sure what the exact process would be to ensure those
    values remain in the registry and that these can be safely used by this document.

    Then in the IANA Considerations, it claims _this_ document is adding these entries
    to the IANA Registry?
            This document introduces a new BGP well-known community
            "LLGR_STALE" for marking long-lived stale routes, and another
            well-known community "NO_LLGR" to mark routes that should not
            be retained if stale.

    So I guess that removes my concern by these entries expiring. I am assuming that this
    document taking over these entries is okay, I just wanted to confirm that with the
    responsible AD, the IETF Secretariat and IANA :-)