Re: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt

Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Fri, 04 November 2016 18:26 UTC

Return-Path: <gih@apnic.net>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A5E81295ED for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 11:26:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -108.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nblk2gZWWoE2 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 11:26:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ao-mailgw.apnic.net (ao-mailgw.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dd8:8:701::25]) (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 316C012960D for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 11:26:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iamda3.org.apnic.net (unknown [2001:dd8:9:2::101:249]) by ao-mailgw.apnic.net (Halon) with ESMTPS id 2e7b6063-a2bc-11e6-b8ce-005056b6ee6f; Sat, 05 Nov 2016 04:26:20 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from dhcp150.potaroo.net (203.119.101.249) by iamda3.org.apnic.net (203.119.111.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 04:26:21 +1000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\))
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <076001d236c0$c790c4e0$56b24ea0$@ndzh.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 05:26:20 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <56935F2E-B81D-4EAB-9737-FC76AD47579A@apnic.net>
References: <112dc01d235fd$57f9c370$07ed4a50$@ndzh.com> <C2DABF02-D3CB-4646-B869-FBCE5F05FDA1@apnic.net> <117ea01d23611$a28513e0$e78f3ba0$@ndzh.com> <CED07D95-A426-469C-85B4-DB2FBE52D14A@apnic.net> <4080cfba032744f590fcbbb710f0d618@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <08C97932-4E8B-4EBC-B780-3A2F54A1EEF2@apnic.net> <C85C0950-8D91-4695-A28A-FC17B9E5AFDC@pfrc.org> <043a01d236b9$f07058f0$d1510ad0$@ndzh.com> <20161104164923.GA30743@pfrc.org> <076001d236c0$c790c4e0$56b24ea0$@ndzh.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/WLjOVksGJ2w5aEvokCPfqBf-s0g>
Cc: IETF IDR WG <idr@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, rtg-dir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 18:26:27 -0000

Jeff, 

I, for one, would encourage you do write this and get atomic-aggregate declared historic. It would result in an update to RFC1997 and RFC4360 and thereby make them consistent with the current text in the Large Communities draft.


Geoff


> On 5 Nov. 2016, at 4:27 am, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
> 
> Jeff: 
> 
> My understanding of the process - is that you do not need to have an RFC to
> deem something historical.  You simply do a WG LC on historical and then
> pass it to the IESG.  
> 
> Sue 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org] 
> Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 12:49 PM
> To: Susan Hares
> Cc: 'Geoff Huston'; 'IETF IDR WG'; rtg-dir@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt
> 
> Sue,
> 
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 12:38:56PM -0400, Susan Hares wrote:
>> Should atomic-aggregate be deemed "historical" at this point?  This 
>> can happen in parallel to this work.
> 
> I'd argue, yes.
> 
> You might recall some of the reasoning as fallout to my introduction to IETF
> and the resultant churn in the 1771bis work as we tried to get the feature
> to make sense. :-)
> 
> While I'm happy to write such a document at some point, it's something
> that's very low priority for the WG.  In the meantime, I'll just keep
> pushing back on things that refer to it.
> 
> -- Jeff
>