Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-abraitis-bgp-version-capability-08, to end September 25

[Donatas Abraitis <[e-mail]>]

So, as I understand, we can forget this idea, right?

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 9:18 PM John Scudder <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
> It seems to me that the discussion hasn’t concluded and we are still
> having productive discussion. Hence, I would like to extend the period for
> discussion by another week, now to conclude on October 2.
>
> Thanks,
>
> —John
>
> > On Sep 8, 2020, at 3:11 PM, John Scudder <jgs=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > You may recall that we had a recent discussion about
> draft-abraitis-bgp-version-capability-07, which was on the ISE track. After
> some discussion both on and off list, the author has updated the document
> and requested WG adoption of
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-abraitis-bgp-version-capability-08__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WoDk_v2eZvQXLUQzQJ6wuGJfnX3PrXgjTEuSzOrPZemMeRV2jticFxEkbOH_dg$
> .
> >
> > This begins the usual two-week discussion period. Please send your
> support, opposition, comments, discussion, before September 25.
> >
> > The recent thread is here:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/q4pUI7jKnYEL_5Cr0mUfoHopY74/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WoDk_v2eZvQXLUQzQJ6wuGJfnX3PrXgjTEuSzOrPZemMeRV2jticFxGnDkHeFQ$
> and an earlier thread, when Donatas first brought the subject up on the
> list, is here:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zHNioWl24mdTthQA0O4OatZ2uy4/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WoDk_v2eZvQXLUQzQJ6wuGJfnX3PrXgjTEuSzOrPZemMeRV2jticFxG1g7uXDA$
> >
> > It’s my impression from these two threads that there’s potentially
> interest from the WG in tackling the problem; it’s less clear to me that
> the WG supports the particular design outlined in the current draft. It
> would be helpful if you’d address both of these when commenting, and keep
> in mind that as usual WG adoption of the draft wouldn't mean “this is the
> exact solution”, it would mean “this is a good starting point.” Finally, as
> a result of the recent discussion, there’s been some renewed interest in
> draft-ietf-idr-operational-message. One suggestion (which I can’t put my
> finger on in the archives right now, sorry) was to turn
> draft-ietf-idr-operational-message into a pure framework document, i.e.
> define no TLVs in it, just the transport. If done, IMO that might open the
> door to more easily allowing a draft like the present one to adopt it as a
> transport.
> >
> > The floor is open for your comments!
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > —John
> > _______________________________________________
> > Idr mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> >
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WoDk_v2eZvQXLUQzQJ6wuGJfnX3PrXgjTEuSzOrPZemMeRV2jticFxHntHgWMA$
>
>

-- 

*Donatas Abraitis*
*Systems Engineer*
@: [e-mail]
W: www.hostinger.com