Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt (2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021)

Susan Hares <> Fri, 12 February 2021 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E6763A1802 for <>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 09:32:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.347
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2t48cASZSL5X for <>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 09:32:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 810493A17FE for <>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 09:32:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: Susan Hares <>
References: <015601d70163$43fe2c40$cbfa84c0$>
In-Reply-To: <015601d70163$43fe2c40$cbfa84c0$>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 12:32:05 -0500
Message-ID: <017e01d70164$fb65d030$f2317090$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_017F_01D7013B.12906470"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQEV9qWNQ16c0czdVOgVmm13yqFBBqvW3Gxw
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 210211-4, 02/11/2021), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt (2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:32:12 -0000

Typo error.   Resending for clarity to the authors. 




In this discussion we do not have consensus on the following things: 


a) the problem this draft is drafting to solve relating to BGP routes, 

b) the need for additional mechanisms to solve the problem, 

c) a clear description of the technology to solve the problem. 


It is difficult to do (b) and (c) without a consensus on the problem.  Since
this is the 2nd time this draft has gone up for adoption, the co-chairs are
considering the input from the list and will provide some suggestions to the


The authors and those who are making comments on this draft are welcome to
continue discussing the topic on-list.   


A big thanks to the operators who have shared their view of the need for the
technology and to all IDR members who have recalled that "clear speech and
kindness can go together".  


Cheers, Sue