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

Adrian Farrel <> Wed, 09 December 2020 09:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E7D03A0FEE; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 01:38:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.917
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vbyc0lLGjsie; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 01:38:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF4313A1012; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 01:38:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0B99cq4n026583; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 09:38:52 GMT
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 968B922044; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 09:38:52 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8588C22050; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 09:38:52 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0B99cpe0008616 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 9 Dec 2020 09:38:52 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <>
To: 'Susan Hares' <>, 'IDR List' <>
References: <0e3501d6cda2$fbf19d40$f3d4d7c0$> <003a01d6cdb0$78d288d0$6a779a70$>
In-Reply-To: <003a01d6cdb0$78d288d0$6a779a70$>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 09:38:51 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <0f0c01d6ce0f$1ad8b790$508a26b0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQGajGRKThIcpkdudESaynUGnDXA0QJsq4HLqlOf3hA=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--10.237-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--10.237-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--10.237300-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 9d2LtCNB3NLxIbpQ8BhdbCIykh/K5QE7DmTV5r5yWnrVH+m1hZHwLiKV DmbphIrbQgLSP0WuN7enCVm/Mvr4ipdcEIIgZZBolVHM/F6YkvSlAfiiC1VA/US7QGf5gRY8Ubv lo2k05QK2NuB4z3qESwJvkdLM4tjFYKZZxkxcUv/i3aa5wOREEQ73P4/aDCIFIHBHfLiUo8TK8V ygGkP/nB4ZmC4wS5PIULROSAJm5r8M5WJq5oHS2TdfT4zyWoZSvvsJC2qWnXcZSz1vvG+0mrR23 iE1zcC0qfZdm7CFymwxLZk5tnbYJimTkruJ7HHMo6SeilAvNO6mUoJ5iJZBr1IwpPWB00V2wmgQ Ob+p64dH0P4JKsCApJ9j0gisAqI1DSqYlKHgkv9/Z1OcGVj16z17tS9vI0px85b+xRMFjst1+6G 6prgDUKxvO9g49ZY7FVO7R1x4YAGDrlECq0GE4sf0rZmodBaWfS0Ip2eEHny+qryzYw2E8Avgps XypsAMDMq3z/Y/gtXfd+P6wwCt84RtqopBKUBlfPWrV5qncDRM26u5Hd1xGdVHUYbb5mtlfJQmf ypCkWf3SXlYYsXnwA==
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Changes to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry
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: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 09:39:04 -0000

Hi Sue,

Looks like Les and I are still fiddling with the words.

Give it another day or two and I'll shout.


-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Hares <> 
Sent: 08 December 2020 22:21
To:; 'IDR List' <>
Subject: RE: [Idr] Changes to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry


Since I do not want things to "get it the way", 
Let  me ask if you are ready for another WG LC on this text? 


-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 3:45 PM
To: 'IDR List'
Subject: [Idr] Changes to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry


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.


Idr mailing list