Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-abraitis-bgp-version-capability-08, to end September 25

[Donatas Abraitis <[e-mail]>]

Robert, thanks for the suggestions.

New version
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-abraitis-bgp-version-capability-09

Basically modified Capability -> OPEN Optional Parameter.

On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 2:35 PM Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Donatas,
>
> From my pov if you are willing to switch encoding to new type of BGP Open
> Optional Parameter this could go in fast track of IDR too. Seems useful and
> not very harmful. And requires just few lines of changes to the draft :)
>
> And while doing those changes you can delete section 3.1 entirely and
> extend this to use 255 octets to be even more useful. If you like you could
> divide this space into few blocks: OS-NAME, OS-VERSION etc ...
>
> Cheers,
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 1:29 PM Donatas Abraitis <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> An additional Open Optional Parameter sounds good to me also. Robert, do
>> you agree on moving this direction + ISE track?
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 2:23 PM Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> In order not to repeat the points made and vastly ignored in this thread
>>> before in Sep 2020 I do think that what is proposed should NOT be carried
>>> in BGP Capabilities.
>>>
>>> Instead if authors would like to proceed I suggest to carry it in new *BGP
>>> Message Type* (perhaps Informational as we have this written out
>>> already) or at least as a new *BGP Open Optional Parameter Type (not as
>>> BGP Capability Type 2)*.
>>>
>>> Stuffing 64 octets of free form text  into BGP Capabilites, while
>>> breaking current BGP Capabilities functionality for opaque stuff seems
>>> completely unjustified.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> R.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 1:04 PM Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On January 10, 2023 at 2:27:34 AM, Donatas Abraitis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Donatas:
>>>>
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> > I'm still concerned and want to get back to this idea somehow, it's
>>>> really
>>>> > convenient.
>>>> >
>>>> > > PS1. And on the other hand if it is not adopted here it will likely
>>>> get
>>>> > > published as an RFC anyway in the ISE track.
>>>> >
>>>> > Who can help me with how to proceed this way as ISE track?
>>>>
>>>> Taking a document through the ISE track is a DIY job -- send email to
>>>> [e-mail]; the process is here:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/independent/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Adrian is not the ISE anymore, so please point Eliot Lear (the new
>>>> ISE) to this thread.  You can cc me for any additional background that
>>>> may be needed.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!!
>>>>
>>>> Alvaro.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Donatas Abraitis*
>> *Principal Systems Engineer*
>> @: [e-mail]
>> W: www.hostinger.com
>>
>>
>> This message and its attachments may contain privileged and confidential
>> information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not use, copy, or
>> disclose this information. Please notify the sender and permanently delete
>> the message from your system.
>
>

-- 

*Donatas Abraitis*
*Principal Systems Engineer*
@: [e-mail]
W: www.hostinger.com

-- 
This
 message and its attachments may contain privileged and confidential 
information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not use, copy, or
 
disclose this information. Please notify the sender and permanently 
delete 
the message from your system.