[Idr] FW: incremental status - 6/24/2020

Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Thu, 25 June 2020 01:55 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48EDE3A122B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 18:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.225
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.225 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 U61sdu9V2THg for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 18:55:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-100-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65ECE3A1229 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 18:55:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=166.170.22.63;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: idr@ietf.org
References: <010601d64a93$332c5680$99850380$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <010601d64a93$332c5680$99850380$@ndzh.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 21:54:32 -0400
Message-ID: <011b01d64a93$92ede340$b8c9a9c0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_011C_01D64A72.0BDF9EA0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHZuXrFy2QdRTDYwPk2B9AQciWMPKjhs/lg
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 200624-2, 06/24/2020), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ba75yoNJRQZ7DrMy9cp5Pb6cQQ0>
Subject: [Idr] FW: incremental status - 6/24/2020
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 01:55:02 -0000

Please let me know if I missed any WG adoption, WG LC, or allocation
request. 

---------

Approved for RFC: 

1) draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-18

2) draft-ietf-rfc5575bis-25

3) draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-09.txt 

--------------

AD review – authors need to respond 

1)  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps/>
draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-15.txt –

         Status: authors working on AD’s comments  

           John Scudder à author (due to editing process) 

           Sue Hares à shepherd 

 

2) draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-06.txt

     Status: Waiting for AD review 

------

Almost ready for IESG publication: 

1) draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-v6-11.txt 

    Shepherd: Jie Dong

    Status: Only waiting for editorial nits resolution in -12. 

 

2) draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-oid-11.txt 

   Shepherd: Susan Hares 

   Status: Only waiting for editorial nits resolution

===============

Next in the Shepherd’s queue: 

1)  draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-txt-01 

    ETA:  6/30/2020

 

2) draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-12  

[2 cisco implementations] 

   ETA: 6/30/2020 

 

3) draft-ietf-ext-opt-param implementations 

    ETA: 7/1/2020 

    I need implementation people to contact me off list. 

    The implementation report needs to additional input. 

 

WG LCs: 

--------------

1) draft-ietf-idr-open-policy-11.txt 

    Status: 2 implementations

     WG LC call extended:  6/4 to 6/30: 

     Why:  original last call for -10.txt, Giving people time to review -11 

     Next Steps:  Summary of Discussion + Shepherd report sent to list 

    

 

2) draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn

    Status: No implementations 

     WG LC: 6/24 to 7/8 

     Question: Should this functionality be in RFC5575bis 

     Or a flow specification v2. 

 

3) draft-ietf-idr-rpd-05.txt 

     Status: 2 implementation 

 
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-rpd%20implementations

     IPR call: 6/24 to  7/1

     WG LC: 7/1 to 7/15

-----------

WG Adoption completed 

    1) draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu – was adopted 

    2) draft-hujun-idr-bgp-ipsec – not adopted 

         draft-hujun-idr-bgp-ipsec-transport-mode – not adopted

      Note: IP-Sec tunnel type is not supported by

 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps/>
draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-15.txt. 

                 The support of IP-SEC tunnels is a continuing issue for
IDR. 

 

WG Adoption calls: 

draft-cl-idr-bgp-ext-com-registry-udpate-00.txt (6/24 to 7/8) 

 

Upcoming WG LC in July 

1) Wide communities

2) draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo 

3) draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-02.txt

4) draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr-02.txt

5) draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-02.txt 

 

 

Early Allocation Requests – none in process.