Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <> Fri, 30 November 2018 20:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E01DC131017; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:10:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.959
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.959 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KbbwLYvLegiC; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:10:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA1E3130FD7; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:10:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=15024; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1543608648; x=1544818248; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=uI3PNEIIoMqjyDgP/il/+9axkB1cmCjNWfpJAATLTaw=; b=UjHRC1HoPGWVGO7G82iFmzSLP2lU6mdqEzdIQRSsE1iWtXxtkKcKux9h h2Cy58n+tM/b13ckFmuh0mIbIjagGQKapQPm7uQTRSYWP/L9yq2OuNUc7 2vOy5Ty8bAW1nTDPY0nqFlgmBXYGYutzttDfsdEkXlTBb9wTb3wDurwus k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AKAAB0mAFc/40NJK1jGgEBAQEBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEHAgEBAQGBUwMBAQEBCwGBDXZmgQInCoNvli+JEYhhhVaBegsBAYRsAhe?= =?us-ascii?q?DHSI2Bw0BAwEBAgEBAm0ohTwBAQEEIwpMEAIBCA4DBAEBKAMCAgIfERQJCAI?= =?us-ascii?q?EAQ0FCIMagR1MAxWnCoEviAQNghyMGheBQD+DbjWCV4JBH4JOglcCjxKGRoo?= =?us-ascii?q?vLgkCjgiDJSCBW4UQijSIe4VviUwCERSBJyYELYFVcBWDJ5BbQTGNKIEfAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,299,1539648000"; d="scan'208,217";a="487934370"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Nov 2018 20:10:47 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id wAUKAltV001657 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 30 Nov 2018 20:10:47 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:10:47 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:10:47 -0600
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <>
To: Alvaro Retana <>, "" <>
CC: Susan Hares <>, "idr@ietf. org" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14
Thread-Index: AQHUh12QnjtbZxhbEU+o9qZQpz0vTqVnCk5wgAICz4D//7VJUA==
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 20:10:46 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_38947591e9cc4dc28f1e801fed7706dfXCHALN001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14
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: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 20:10:57 -0000

Alvaro –

V15 has been posted – I believe it addresses all of your comments.

I NEVER make assumptions about how long a process which is mostly out of my control will take. ☺


From: Alvaro Retana <>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 10:37 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <>om>;
Cc: Susan Hares <>om>; idr@ietf. org <>rg>;
Subject: RE: AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-14


Please change the reference.

I don’t foresee any delays in the processing of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis.  Do you (you are the lead Editor)?



On November 29, 2018 at 12:58:40 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) (<>) wrote:
I am fine with all of your comments – but I do have one concern.

You suggest replacing the reference to RFC7810 with a reference to draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis.
If we do that then the publication of this document will be blocked on the publication of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis. But the changes being made in the bis draft do not affect the content of this document in any way. So it makes more sense to me to continue to reference RFC 7810.

I’ll go with whatever you decide, but wanted to raise this point before making the suggested change.