Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext [5/2 - 5/16/2018]

Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at> Tue, 04 June 2019 10:30 UTC

Return-Path: <c@tix.at>
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 945FF12011F; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 03:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 mix1weEUofiZ; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 03:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hated.at (mail.hated.at [IPv6:2001:858:2:8::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70B04120033; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 03:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gaestewlan.nextlayer.at ([92.60.6.196] helo=[192.168.68.63]) by mail.hated.at with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <c@tix.at>) id 1hY6cB-0004aB-Co; Tue, 04 Jun 2019 12:24:23 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at>
In-Reply-To: <004201d51abd$498a5000$dc9ef000$@ndzh.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 12:29:49 +0200
Cc: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>, idr@ietf.org, draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AE26F8AB-F67F-464E-BB40-63C23B14712D@tix.at>
References: <01ce01d5167f$d263a120$772ae360$@ndzh.com> <DM5PR11MB202720F61953C224DB081498C1140@DM5PR11MB2027.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <02cf01d51ab1$052bfc80$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <004201d51abd$498a5000$dc9ef000$@ndzh.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/d06E47eVvmpLv1yFLe0LHXNo1T4>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext [5/2 - 5/16/2018]
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: Tue, 04 Jun 2019 10:30:00 -0000

Hi,

> On 04.06.2019, at 12:07, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
> 
> Your short mail usually has good suggestions, so I tried to decode this
> message - but I failed.  I'm guessing at the question.  

I think the point here is a simple “naming” inconsistency of the draft itself. *Most* of the BGP-LS drafts have

	“bgp-ls” 

in the document name while this one (not the only one btw) uses

	“bgpls”

in the name.

Cheers Christoph


Appendix: Datatracker research

draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-02 
draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-19
draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-00 <<<< this is the new one

vs.

draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr-00 
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-00 
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-00
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-15
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-rld-03 
draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext-05 

-- 
Christoph Loibl
c@tix.at | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | http://www.nextlayer.at