Re: [Idr] 2 week working group LC for draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines-07.txt (12/10 to 12/24)

"Simpson, Adam (Adam)" <adam.simpson@alcatel-lucent.com> Mon, 05 January 2015 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <adam.simpson@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE07D1A1BA4 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 10:43:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.459
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.459 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TUDb0_vXFgdK for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 10:43:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpgre-esg-01.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C88C31A8789 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 10:42:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.5.2.63]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 75082A0D65EA; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 18:42:36 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from US70UWXCHHUB01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70uwxchhub01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.48]) by us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id t05Igcpn011380 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 5 Jan 2015 13:42:38 -0500
Received: from US70TWXCHMBA09.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.158]) by US70UWXCHHUB01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.48]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 13:42:38 -0500
From: "Simpson, Adam (Adam)" <adam.simpson@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] 2 week working group LC for draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines-07.txt (12/10 to 12/24)
Thread-Index: AdAUbQ+FommVT3gzR9OteJIyUCpDMAG7Re/gA29NggA=
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 18:42:37 +0000
Message-ID: <D0D0438A.58CB3%adam.simpson@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <015201d0146d$860c7ae0$922570a0$@ndzh.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA846961D9@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA846961D9@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.7.141117
x-originating-ip: [135.5.27.16]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D0D0438A58CB3adamsimpsonalcatellucentcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/amBC4izBXWHsT5GIyZx29T4K874
Subject: Re: [Idr] 2 week working group LC for draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines-07.txt (12/10 to 12/24)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 18:43:31 -0000

This draft was originally intended to be informational but the desire to standardize at least one common path selection algorithm across all implementations caused us to reconsider whether this should really be standards track. I think we would still welcome input on this point. Either way though I don’t think ‘guidelines’ vs. ‘best practices’ conveys a key difference.

-Adam

From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com<mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com>>
Date: Friday, December 19, 2014 at 2:09 AM
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Idr] 2 week working group LC for draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines-07.txt (12/10 to 12/24)


If this draft is intended to be informational, I think the title of the draft should be changed from “best practice for for Advertisement of Multiple Paths in IBGP
” into “guidelines ….”

Regards!
-Qin
发件人: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Susan Hares
发送时间: 2014年12月10日 19:36
收件人: idr wg
主题: [Idr] 2 week working group LC for draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines-07.txt (12/10 to 12/24)

This is to begin a 2 week WG last call for draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines  (12/10/2014 to 12/24/2014) which can be found at:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines/

Please send your comments on whether these guidelines are ready to be sent to the IESG as an informational draft.

Sue