Re: [Idr] Request to adopt draft-heitz-idr-large-community - Working Group Adoption call (9/6 to 9/20)

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 1:19 PM, Randy Bush <[e-mail]> wrote:
> otoh, if you can get a 32:32:tlv draft out by monday, and we have no
> technical objections from ops by the end of next week, cool.  i'll buy
> you a nice dinner in seoul.  i have nothing against the idea, just a
> deep skepticism of the idr process.  (yes, jeff, i am thinking of you)

I haven't seen a single post from the influx of operational folk that is a technical objection on a common header.  I've seen a significant number of posts that seem to think that by adding a common header, "it's wide comms, it'll never get done, it's too hard"... whatever.  If a fixed header on the front of a list was considered too difficult, we should kill pretty much all IETF work.

Is -large sufficient for the specific use case? Yes.
Do I want a common header so I can stop telling people they have to filter objectionable optional transitive stuff causing their network issues using path attribute filtering (harmful to new features, period)? Absolutely.

A trimmed draft derived from the -wide-03 containing only common header and 4:4 dense packing can be produced in an hour.  That document would be functionally identical to -large with a common header.  This is not the issue.

And nice to know you're thinking so kindly of me, Randy.  We'll discuss our other collaborations at a later date.

-- Jeff