Re: [Idr] community of the day - common header

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 07:49:43PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 07:46:50PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > If WG agrees on attribute + common header as described in current -03
> > version of wide community draft with perhaps additional comments to be
> > incorporated in it - then we are done.
> 
> And if the WG does not agree, then -large is blocked?  Or how do I have
> to read this statement?

Gert, while this is directed to you, this also applies to any operators
who've joined the list recently who aren't familiar with IETF process.

Minimally, please recent the tao of the ietf:
https://www.ietf.org/tao.html

The IETF works via rough consensus.  That consensus includes "letting go",
as seen in the tao. The IETF doesn't work through squatting on code point
and shipping early terrorism.  That leads to crashing the Internet.

If the WG says "no common header", we move forward with that proposal, code
happens and we move to interoperate.  In that case, the 4:4 type in wide
comms is likely removed from that proposal.

If the WG says "common header", ditto.  In that case, we have the following
possibilities in terms of documents:
1. It stays in the wide comm doc.  This is unlikely since the wide comm
feature is clearly moving at too slow of a pace.
2. We split the 4:4 case into a separate document.  Similarly, we likely
split out the common header to a separate document.  This permits the
documents (common, 4:4, wide) to move at separate speeds through the
standardization process.

2 is likely.  The use case of 4:4 is *already* covered in a WG document,
thus adoption of the case isn't necessary.  The chairs had explicitly asked
for documents to be published for the WG to comment on.  This means separate
wide comms, common header and 4:4.  The split was arguably gated on agreeing
on the common header comments.

> Seems you and Jakob have been discussing this for years now, while the
> operator community is waiting for something they can *just use*, no matter
> whether it's brilliant or extensible or perfect.

Years?  I'm not even sure I met Jakob nor heard about this draft until
last month.

The operational community?  Sure.  That's why the 4:4 case was originally in
the wide document.

Moving to a denser format?  PDUs are the *boring* part of standardization.
Drama aside, this is converging no worse than any other proposal in IDR.

-- Jeff