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

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 10:49:06PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > Can we get a rough consensus of the IDR WG community that someone
> > tomorrow or the day after will not come and request new attribute for
> > 4:4:4:4 ? Or 16:4:4 ? Or define Large Ext Communities with yet one more
> > attribute ?
> > 
> > If we reach that consensus here I am personally fine to give up on
> > trying to put large under common header and will not longer push it. 
> 
> There are no proposals on the table for this and I'm not aware of anyone
> with plans to push any.

Funny, I sat at a table for most of IETF-96 talking PDU formatting issues for
reconciling wide and large to a common header where exactly those formats
were discussed.  Some of the same crowd that stirred up the operators with
pitchforks and torches. :-)

> The people proposing large have already stated that their draft is
> sufficient for their needs; it certainly scratches my communities itch
> to satisfaction and the same for any other operators I've talked to.
> 
> Does anyone else on the WG mailing list have any plans in this area that
> couldn't be accommodated in a TLV framework?

Any reason to not throw a common header on this one as the first and stop
kicking this football down the field another round?

-- Jeff