[Idr] Changes to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 08 December 2020 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96F083A1172; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 12:45:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NNEC33PVNZlk; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 12:45:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (mta5.iomartmail.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45E483A1225; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 12:44:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (vs1.iomartmail.com []) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0B8Kitt3001208; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 20:44:55 GMT
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70D6D2203B; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 20:44:55 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (unknown []) by vs1.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BF452203A; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 20:44:55 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0B8Kisra016949 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 8 Dec 2020 20:44:54 GMT
Reply-To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'IDR List'" <idr@ietf.org>
Cc: "'Alvaro Retana'" <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, <idr-chairs@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 20:44:53 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <0e3501d6cda2$fbf19d40$f3d4d7c0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AdbNdXrNuLehXBdpQRWHs5x1f3cxYQ==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--4.415-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--4.415-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--4.415100-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: q10OwmTJkdoOwAmmWH5kBPVY7U3NX8JgIsskYJKBkqTV2YB51b9tmLcw ZLpPFTtA3+cJ6tKTUNXP5TxKMvHXWr291+2n1UciLFqCUQ7xhcy8xE2H2EuMWbZrwavUsIfNkYT U6i+WFgW3VUgn0eOAU44aT+INq4EyE/oMZLAmO1pcrmR4Jr5uaDHxTmKQiP7iRJts9OIxqBOSKG tBM7/qzT0r+0u0UrMfiLY1K/aKw9OlSLM56aAmmOIfK/Jd5eHmi+TAnPnbttgHdnpVZivvnO6XO DXRWDdK87FwpQGvl9wS+yDvHl1a8U6L74JlBxBytT4jIeGRd/UYOnQDwWp0xJsoi2XrUn/JyeMt MD9QOgAzDLM3gGacyXQdJ7XfU86exlblqLlYqXLHiHhWYam3SrcRY/wJ/PIU+tYT1BfDyjNh5mP HKteJWjVAdYuMIOE/Ae/VBLPpa5nrLOK20kmPhr55I9YQqlzBq6i5/fPzvx+wn+PGVed3d2n3Ee 4z0B9SIp5Rs422B5N7VnB1kjR3Xzjo2qqMpCGc
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/WD7co4iroooBlg0cpMihuySF-xo>
Subject: [Idr] Changes to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 20:45:15 -0000


Thanks to all for the useful input and sorry for the long delay while
"things" got in the way.

I made some changes to the draft according to Alvaro's comments and then
updated the DE guidance per the discussions on list.

Ketan noted that point 6 of the guidance in RFC 7370 talks about "timeouts"
per RFC 7120. That only applies to early allocations, and that's not what
we're doing. I think it is still worth carrying text about what happens if
the document never becomes an RFC, so I have retained something similar, but
different. I hope this is consistent with what Les said.

Acee additionally suggested that code point requests should be "fully
transparent to the LSR list". I haven't added this, but it would be simple
to do if there is support for it.

Since the text changes are pretty much the whole draft, the easiest thing
seems to be to post an update and then invite you to review and comment. So
that's what I have done.