[Idr] 答复: Adoption call for draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis-01.txt [8/8 to 8/22]

"Aijun Wang" <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Thu, 15 August 2019 07:56 UTC

Return-Path: <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
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 345DD12006E for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 00:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 zo77PiWOljfy for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 00:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from m176115.mail.qiye.163.com (m176115.mail.qiye.163.com [59.111.176.115]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E4412003E for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 00:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from WangajPC (unknown [219.142.69.77]) by m176115.mail.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id D479F6621F3; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 15:56:27 +0800 (CST)
From: "Aijun Wang" <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: "'Susan Hares'" <shares@ndzh.com>, "'idr wg'" <idr@ietf.org>
References: <000c01d54e1f$db81b080$92851180$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <000c01d54e1f$db81b080$92851180$@ndzh.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 15:56:28 +0800
Message-ID: <01b001d5533e$f245dc00$d6d19400$@org.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01B1_01D55382.00691C00"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdVOH5HoHfsN7/tjRt2OgDiNu7rv6QFG5Luw
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUtXWQgYFAkeWUFZS1VKS0NLS0tPTElKQ0xCQk1ZV1koWU FKTEtLSjdXWS1ZQUlXWQkOFx4IWUFZNTQpNjo3JCkuNz5ZBg++
X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6Pww6Pgw*PjlPHT00DisaDCxR FysKCUtVSlVKTk1OQ05OTEJISkxKVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlJSkJVSk9JVU1CVUxMWVdZCAFZQUpLTUJDNwY+
X-HM-Tid: 0a6c94472b9f9373kuwsd479f6621f3
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/igQBHPYqEWT9SODdHTMAOjl422s>
Subject: [Idr] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIEFkb3B0aW9uIGNhbGwgZm9yIGRyYWZ0LWtl?= =?gb2312?b?dGFudC1pZHItcmZjNzc1MmJpcy0wMS50eHQgWzgvOCB0byA4LzIyXQ==?=
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: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 07:56:39 -0000

Support the adoption.
As pointed out at the appendix-A
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis-01#appendix-A> , I
think this document has made amounts clarification and update to the
implementation of BGP-LS protocol.
 
Some comments are the bellowing:
1. Is it possible to converge this document with Adrian’s draft
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrel-idr-bgp-ls-registry/> ? Both
are trying to update RFC7752.
2. Draft [draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext]
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext
/>  is to solve the reports of inter-AS links. Is it more convenient for the
reader to get such information via referencing it at section 4.6
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis-01#section-4.6> ?
 

 

Best Regards.

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

发件人: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Susan Hares
发送时间: 2019年8月9日 3:31
收件人: 'idr wg'
主题: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis-01.txt [8/8 to
8/22]

 

This begins a 2 week adoption call for draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis-01.txt
[8/8 to 8/22/2019] 

 

In your comments please indicate “support” or “no support”.   

 

The chair and AD feel that a revision to RFC7752 is needed 

to specify additional error handling.  Please consider 

if this draft is a good place to start for this revision. 

 

Cheerily, Susan Hares