Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt - WG Adoption call (10/14 to 10/28/2019)

[Huaimo Chen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sue,

    Thank you very much for your time.
    We would like to submit it as draft-ietf-idr-bgp-rpd.

Best Regards,
Huaimo
________________________________
From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, November 1, 2019 8:56 AM
To: Huaimo Chen <[e-mail]>; 'Christoph Loibl' <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'idr wg' <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Idr] draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt - WG Adoption call (10/14 to 10/28/2019)


Huiamo:

<wg chair hat on>

The title draft-ietf-idr-bgp-rpd is acceptable to this chair.   If you would like to submit draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt as draft-ietf-idr-bgp-rpd, then please let me know.   I will enable your submission of the draft.



Sue Hares



From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Huaimo Chen
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 10:44 PM
To: Susan Hares; 'Christoph Loibl'
Cc: 'idr wg'
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt - WG Adoption call (10/14 to 10/28/2019)



Hi Christoph,



    Thanks much for your support and suggesting tilte draft-ietf-idr-bgp-rpd for the draft.

   This title is good. Would it be better to use draft-ietf-idr-bgp-routing-policy-distribution?

    The latter is similar to other titles such as draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-policy-path-segment.



Best Regards,

Huaimo

________________________________

From: Idr <[e-mail]> on behalf of Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 9:10 AM
To: 'Christoph Loibl' <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'idr wg' <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt - WG Adoption call (10/14 to 10/28/2019)



Christoph:
<WG member hat on, individual contributor>
I agree with your review of the title.

Sue Hares

-----Original Message-----
From: Christoph Loibl [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 2:43 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: idr wg
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt - WG Adoption call
(10/14 to 10/28/2019)

I know, I am very late with my support. I was unable to read the latest
version of the document till now.

I fully support the adoption (this happened already I know).

However, one thing I want to mention:

The technology described in the document is not really related to BGP
Flowspec and even the title has been changed in the meantime:

        from
        BGP FlowSpec Extensions for Routing Policy Distribution (RPD) (-00)
        to
        BGP Extensions for Routing Policy Distribution (RPD) (-05)

I recommend using a different working-title for the draft as well (currently
draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd / draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-rpd) to avoid confusion
with other flowspec related work in IDR (ie. draft-ietf-idr-bgp-rpd-00)

Cheers Christoph

--
Christoph Loibl
[e-mail] | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nextlayer.at&amp;data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cf87644e2b368483fc73e08d75e03ccf9%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637081242736400279&amp;sdata=B3%2FWszat01yiMTQLuulRBqcKrs6izPnWrqxYX0ge%2BG8%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nextlayer.at&data=02%7C01%7Chchen%40futurewei.com%7C0b1eadbe4d78446b222408d75ecae081%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637082097773361791&sdata=e%2FzCY6cEpI%2BulS05JCIPaLBZwlEsCgCUBjpIwi0LQfY%3D&reserved=0>



> On 14.10.2019, at 21:18, Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05..txt

> (10/14 to 10/28/2019).  You can access the draft at:
>
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cf87644e2b368483fc73e08d75e03ccf9%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637081242736400279&amp;sdata=oN2YF8xB0VNV%2BYkbqEcZVURE3M4RFDTn5pIwRIfnU3Y%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd%2F&data=02%7C01%7Chchen%40futurewei.com%7C0b1eadbe4d78446b222408d75ecae081%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637082097773371780&sdata=VN9YNsEb%2B3GROOQMfU4fpzAPTyEFN0RxHkJhYdsq5Lg%3D&reserved=0>
>
> In your discussion regarding this draft consider if:
>
> 1)      Passing extended policy in BGP  is useful,
> 2)      Passing policy in wide community atom is a technical sound
mechanism,
> 3)      A deployment need exists for this technology.
>
>
> Susan Hares
> Co-chair and shepherd
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fidr&amp;data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cf87644e2b368483fc73e08d75e03ccf9%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637081242736400279&amp;sdata=7UJGGV31hhkTUieQuXjy0gFd3yyOJ9SuWyuT4ued8Ag%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fidr&data=02%7C01%7Chchen%40futurewei.com%7C0b1eadbe4d78446b222408d75ecae081%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637082097773381775&sdata=Jv7MdzJ4p6OsTRpyf0PQlyn8tTY9fRD0%2BQtTGQMVJoM%3D&reserved=0>


_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fidr&amp;data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cf87644e2b368483fc73e08d75e03ccf9%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637081242736400279&amp;sdata=7UJGGV31hhkTUieQuXjy0gFd3yyOJ9SuWyuT4ued8Ag%3D&amp;reserved=0<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fidr&data=02%7C01%7Chchen%40futurewei.com%7C0b1eadbe4d78446b222408d75ecae081%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637082097773381775&sdata=Jv7MdzJ4p6OsTRpyf0PQlyn8tTY9fRD0%2BQtTGQMVJoM%3D&reserved=0>