Re: [Idr] Fw: BGP autodiscovery design team

<> Thu, 05 December 2019 09:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD8B1200F1 for <>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 01:24:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hqdxuTM9vgqr for <>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 01:24:30 -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 DE44C1200A4 for <>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 01:24:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id CC166128D70662D0EF05 for <>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 17:24:25 +0800 (CST)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id B4467FE962DB493927C4; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 17:24:25 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ([]) by with SMTP id xB58W6Vu092444; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 16:32:06 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from
Received: from mapi (kjyxapp03[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid14; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 16:32:06 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 16:32:06 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2b055de8c086e980efb6
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: xB58W6Vu092444
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Fw: BGP autodiscovery design team
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: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 09:24:33 -0000

Hi John,
I'd be happy to volunteer on this.




JohnScudder <>

idr wg <>;

日 期 :
2019年12月05日 03:33

主 题 :
[Idr] BGP autodiscovery design team


Hi All,I realized this morning that although we announced in the last meeting that we’re forming this design team, we never announced it on the list. This is to correct that mistake. Here’s the text of the slide we presented at the meeting (• Clear interest in WG to work on this topic.• No clear consensus on a specific approach.• Proposals (four of them) progressively closer semantically, seems likely convergence can happen. • But, important differences remain.    • At least: transport (L2, L3), liveness, security, maybe multihop.• Chairs propose to charter a design team to close on a single proposal, by next meeting.    • Might build on one of the existing drafts, might be a new draft, up to the design team.    • Emphasis on pragmatism, OK to limit applicability (for example, to a single administrative domain). • Questions? Comments? Volunteers?—We are in the process of forming the team and hope to announce it soon. We have many good volunteers already but if you didn’t know and do want to volunteer, please contact Sue and me. Note that the design team will not make any binding decisions: as with all WG work, the WG has the final word, so any output of the DT will serve as input to the WG as a whole. (So even if you aren’t part of the DT, that doesn’t mean you won’t have a chance to be part of the process.)Thanks,—John_______________________________________________Idr mailing listIdr@ietf.org