Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call (2nd post) - draft-farrel-idr-bgp-ls-registry-03.txt [11/3 to 11/17/2019]

"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com> Mon, 04 November 2019 01:33 UTC

Return-Path: <jie.dong@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31741120858 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 17:33:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y1XWHpsd4mYY for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 17:33:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CF6E120856 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 17:33:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id AC805F7890960E85CFF4 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 01:33:40 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.70) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 01:33:40 +0000
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by nkgeml411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 09:33:32 +0800
From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] WG Adoption call (2nd post) - draft-farrel-idr-bgp-ls-registry-03.txt [11/3 to 11/17/2019]
Thread-Index: AdWSeb/dqPJstGJnTOWfrEN2Z8GiNgANfKbQ
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 01:33:31 +0000
Message-ID: <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927CD32C48B@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <001101d5927a$09fe8c00$1dfba400$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <001101d5927a$09fe8c00$1dfba400$@ndzh.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.130.151.75]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927CD32C48BNKGEML515MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/i0MwH5uZOOcBeHCvMtw29fBQ_Kw>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call (2nd post) - draft-farrel-idr-bgp-ls-registry-03.txt [11/3 to 11/17/2019]
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 01:33:47 -0000

Support the adoption.

Best regards,
Jie

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2019 3:08 AM
To: idr@ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] WG Adoption call (2nd post) - draft-farrel-idr-bgp-ls-registry-03.txt [11/3 to 11/17/2019]

Greetings IDR:

The adoption call for  draft-farrell-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt  was inconclusive.
We had clear support, but just not enough response.
This lack of response was probably due to my errors in posting the
name of the draft (pardon my error Adrian) [Blush..]

To make this easier, the current draft is:

draft-farrel-idr-bgp-ls-registry-03/
which you can get at;

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrel-idr-bgp-ls-registry/

This draft proposes to refine the instructions for RFC7752
"Border Gateway Protocol - Link   State (BGP-LS) Parameters Registry"
from Designated Expert to  Expert Review.

These are both technical reviews prior to assignments of
code point or code points in the registry.
The only difference is instructions for the review.

Please read this draft and consider if the changes for the
BGP-LS review will speed up the BGP-LS parameter assignments.

John and I anticipate that expert reviews will allow code request for
BGP-LS quicker response to code requests.  We encourage the WG to
read and strongly consider this draft.

Cheers, Sue