Re: [Idr] WG adoption of draft-farrel-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt

"Adrian Farrel" <> Fri, 01 November 2019 22:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C52120A1A for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 15:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y1cHFOhpoJ5C for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 15:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42A0D120B7B for <>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 15:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id xA1MGk5N029777; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 22:16:46 GMT
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2F032203B; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 22:16:45 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDB892203A; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 22:16:45 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id xA1MGiGj032251 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 1 Nov 2019 22:16:45 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <>
To: 'Susan Hares' <>, 'John Scudder' <>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 22:16:43 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <00b801d59102$0b7b26c0$22717440$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B9_01D59102.0B7D97C0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AdWRALeK+IyxU/wYTFGXRiiFdBAzMg==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--24.370-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--24.370-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--24.370000-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: CxmI61mtwh9or4mPA3EMtnFPUrVDm6jtlFGUu7DBzhiA6UrbM3j3qeGa gQwUd6qh8Z5fKpgDJPCMTb/6ckXgt9tn1etZCRwykNUp3q2HfhAHuUxnhixmT7V5fSMRD1zqCX0 hYHHH6QGnKN6lHuIBkZ5x7v2CyjvzvsHryaMJEsGFTLRMAFrHXK15LjjfKZ5RJPsFKFZgy/MpdG gkOEUhUo0W/nUPvg/wPu3jVAfatXrqZvn1CxNNYZCB65RjRY3sAgvM6h73Btp7U6ND9bLE/lk0u hbVrhisLUxCQCxJptJkFRB6VNEptWgXrzP3rqzHSi1OnXSOTeK8xE2H2EuMWYNCethLwYzdbCg3 M30KSdNbrwKdTxzX1OWYSIzA/m69SpikEa+pNY3C0TXpqtexIiIk3dpe5X+hecWlXJSQOaWOwuF tGBarIVlcqyLieSwWTby/ZaOkR56dYRcR/wKI08n9tWHiLD2G6/ovm5YGTGkmUCcedqzAaYFxL9 jM1UxMOPPdk4TtzCd/Zn2wMgAXuht/YAa8pitoHT2MlaqyxprNUTeBBPKQKk9CJC/MWIZ4NDqAw 5qS0mdP90G317bPD2BvWhuCXi/0+Hgegbm3jhlQUls+WYG/wybiV/S36CI4hgn72LMkncqHLWs1 tMCVelZE2FILZLeO7eyKnTQDBwroUDA5jzcgzSjtvm0vFhmt+KgiyLtJrSDkVxMuJPWZNA/gN7z duuYXdNuRPTy4jpFJpV9rHFX3jzblc6Gei4nlCLQsumV/5S+CFkqa43bHmxwj+lmz7HEvMH5J9m 1W04+L30ibjUzf68Vhm8uR4OngLEu3XubSvQGeAiCmPx4NwGmRqNBHmBve1B0Hk1Q1KyI9euiYe 3o8eEprfkiB9+n/4kYXbobxJbKl/MtrTwS4UJLibQTZlU23/0WaivywSR8m5fExBUBJRo36u8kP UWqGTpZfAMJXboo=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption of draft-farrel-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt
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, 01 Nov 2019 22:16:53 -0000

Hello chairs, WG,


I may have taken my eye off the IDR list for a while, but it seems to me that my draft is languishing.


Did the WG last call complete? Did we decide to adopt or discard?





From: Susan Hares <> 
Sent: 09 August 2019 16:15
To:; 'Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)' <>; 'John Scudder' <>
Subject: RE: [Idr] WG adoption of draft-farrell-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt


Adrian and WG: 


<WG chair hat on> 

Ketan and his co-authors have been carefully working RFC7752bis 

prior to adopting in the WG.  However, given the comments to the list – 

I would like to make sure the WG is not rushed to address all known 

Issues in RFC752. 


We can usually send through registry drafts quickly. 


The WG can progress both drafts in parallel. 

<Chair hat off> 


<wg member hat on>  

I suggest we put both drafts as one of our 

Key milestones for IDR. 

<wg member hat off> 


Cheers, Sue 




From: Idr [] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 7:50 AM
To: 'Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)'; 'John Scudder'
Cc: <> ; 'Hares Susan'
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption of draft-farrell-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt


Hi Ketan,




We’re assuming that 7752bis will take a while to progress through the working group (I might be wrong) while we could advance draft-farrel-idr-bgp-ls-registry pretty fast.


If I’m wrong we should simply roll my draft into 7752bis and be done.


If I’m right:

*        My draft runs to completion

*        7752bis needs to obsolete 7752 and the RFC that my draft will become, and the IANA section has to be updated to reflect what the registry will say at that time.





From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) < <> > 
Sent: 08 August 2019 11:47
To: John Scudder < <> >; Adrian Farrel < <> >
Cc: <> ; Hares Susan < <> >
Subject: RE: [Idr] WG adoption of draft-farrell-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt


Hi All,


I obviously support this “easing of process overhead” for BGP-LS code point allocations. Apologies for not responding earlier.


Adrian, can you please also let know if the same text needs to be also updated in draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis which is also up for WG adoption and would result in obsoleting RFC7752?





From: Idr < <> > On Behalf Of John Scudder
Sent: 06 August 2019 02:57
To: Adrian Farrel < <> >
Cc: <> ; Hares Susan < <> >
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption of draft-farrell-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt


Well obviously I (with my “working group member” rubber mask and fright wig) kind of want them but I was holding off on saying so because that's kind of obvious.  


To reiterate for others’ benefit why I think this is worthwhile vs. early allocation:


- It reflects the author’s original intent, for whatever that’s worth. (The WG’s current intent is more important.)

- It provides the minimum of red tape, less even than early allocation.

- Because the number space is large, resolving the tension between red tape and the risk of something silly being allocated in favor of permissiveness is OK.

- Let’s not forget there’s still at least two humans in the loop (the Designated Expert and IANA).


That said, if the WG can’t generate enough enthusiasm to say “yes please” then I won’t cry, although I also won’t (with “WG co-chair” spangled epaulets and cravat on) feel as sympathetic next time someone tells me it’s too hard to get a code point.




On Aug 5, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Adrian Farrel < <> > wrote:


Hi WG,


I just want to rattle the bars of the cage a bit, here.


John (reliably) informs me that he had a number of conversations about the BGP-LS registries and their allocation policies: people (it seems) wanted more-relaxed rules.


It is possible that the advocates are the authors of the set of drafts that have just been pushed forward for “early allocation” and so no one cares any more.


Or it is possible that everyone is too busy.


Or, perhaps, no one wants these changes.





From: Idr < <>> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: 27 July 2019 01:37
To:  <>
Subject: [Idr] WG adoption of draft-farrell-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt


This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-farrel-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt.


Let the discussion begin and in midst of your comments please remember to include "support" or "no support".



Adrian enjoy the discussion.


Cheerily  Sue




Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7 edge, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

Idr mailing list