Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-06.txt (2/4/2022 to 2/18/2022)

['Job Snijders' <[e-mail]>]

Dear Sue, others,

Thank you for your message.

On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 11:30:40AM -0500, Susan Hares wrote:
> Job: 
> 
> <WG Chair> 
> Thank you for letting me know there are broken links
>  on the implementation page.  I believe I have addressed these issues.  
> Please reload your page and let me know if there are more. 
> 
> I hope you will provide feedback on atoms 1-8 
> as optional  features that are not implemented. 
> 
> In the past, the IDR has made the following choices on
> 1) remove from specification (knowing may come back as a BIS)
> 2) hold the draft for implementations of atoms 1-8. 
> 3) keep optional features in the text, but note lack of 
>     implementations  (rare, but possible if WG desires). 
> <WG chair off> 


As 'Atoms' appear to be a core aspect of Wide Communities, so it seems
quite awkward to publish this document - without any implementation of
the concept of Atoms!

To me it seems that 'option 2 - hold the draft for implementation' is
the simplest path forward, or as secondary choice 'remove from spec'.

Publication of internet-drafts which lack implementations, in my opinion
sets dangerous precedent for IDR; I hope the WG appreciates my
insistence on this matter.

Kind regards,

Job