[Idr] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-11: (with COMMENT)

Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 21 April 2021 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietf.org
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D22FA3A30C1; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, shares@ndzh.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.28.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <161902677084.21894.2107273327558213751@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:39:30 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/gzIXHIk_IXEQfsVLzBKzAu79YJA>
Subject: [Idr] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 17:39:31 -0000

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Rob. Though not at all an expert on BGP, I think that if BGP nodes
MUST NOT use the new encoding for smaller parameter sets, that is going to make
it harder to test for the capability on the internet and reduce the incentives
to support this specification. I would suggest that instead they SHOULD use the
RFC4271 encoding, possibly discussing the reasons one might not.