Re: [Idr] Idr Digest, Vol 183, Issue 66

Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Thu, 25 July 2019 22:28 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.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 CC9E112028C for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.886
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.886 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_MIME_MALF=0.01, 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 GJ6-h2O51Kdr for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-100-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 109C41202BC for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=31.133.155.51;
SavedFromEmail: shares@ndzh.com
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 18:28:03 -0400
In-Reply-To: <mailman.3272.1564093337.9467.idr@ietf.org>
Importance: normal
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: idr@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--_com.samsung.android.email_2010021268336150"
Message-ID: <1564093683_127103@FUMC-WEB2>
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/iuxBj99mZgoxDvPU-PpGST8Q4Kw>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Idr Digest, Vol 183, Issue 66
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, 25 Jul 2019 22:28:13 -0000

Sounds great to me.SueSent via the Samsung Galaxy S7 edge, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: idr-request@ietf.org Date: 7/25/19  6:22 PM  (GMT-05:00) To: idr@ietf.org Subject: Idr Digest, Vol 183, Issue 66 Send Idr mailing list submissions to	idr@ietf.orgTo subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idror, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to	idr-request@ietf.orgYou can reach the person managing the list at	idr-owner@ietf.orgWhen replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specificthan "Re: Contents of Idr digest..."Today's Topics:   1. 2 week WG adoption call for      draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-05.txt - 7/26 to 8/8 (Susan Hares)   2. Re: [GROW] WG LC for Extended BGP Administrative Shutdown      Communication (bs) - draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-04.txt (7/9 to      7/23) - Extended to 8/6/2019 (John Scudder)   3. Re: WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt      (Nikos Triantafillis)   4. Re: WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt      (Ketan Talaulikar (ketant))----------------------------------------------------------------------Message: 1Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 18:03:22 -0400From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>To>To: "'idr wg'" <idr@ietf.org>Cc>Cc: <draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence@ietf.org>Subjectubject: [Idr] 2 week WG adoption call for	draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-05.txt - 7/26 to 8/8Message-ID: <041d01d54334$c686efb0$5394cf10$@ndzh.com>Content-Typet-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"This begins a 2 week WG Adoption call fordraft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-05.txt from 7/26/2019 to 8/8/2019.  The authors have indicated that there are already multiple implementationsof this draft.    The draft may rapidly go from WG Adoption to WG LC.  Please indicate in your comments: a)      "support" or "no support", b)      Any concerns about the technology, and c)       Any benefits for BGP deployments.  Cheerily, Susan Hares -------------- next part --------------An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/attachments/20190725/02ff03d3/attachment.html>------------------------------Message: 2Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 22:09:48 +0000From: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>To>To: Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>om>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>Cc>Cc: "grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>Subjectubject: Re: [Idr] [GROW] WG LC for Extended BGP Administrative	Shutdown Communication (bs) - draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-04.txt (7/9 to	7/23) - Extended to 8/6/2019Message-ID: <680B90BD-9201-4B89-BAF4-79925825AC67@juniper.net>Content-Typet-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"(As an individual contributor and co-author.)Thanks for extending this, Sue. Maybe it will help the WG to have a reminder about what this document does. It?s a revision of RFC 8203. First, here is the rfcdiff vs. RFC 8203: http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=rfc8203&url2=draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bisIt is quite short, especially when you skip over the boilerplate and "RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION? sections. The sole normative change vs. 8203 is the deletion of one sentence:OLD:   Length:  this 8-bit field represents the length of the Shutdown      Communication field in octets.  The length value MUST range from 0      to 128 inclusive.  When the length value is zero, no Shutdown      Communication field follows.NEW:   Length:  this 8-bit field represents the length of the Shutdown      Communication field in octets.  When the length value is zero, no      Shutdown Communication field follows.The reason for this change is summarized in in Appendix B:   Feedback from operators based in regions which predominantly use   multibyte character sets, showed that messages similar in meaning to   what can be send in other languages in using single-byte encoding,   failed to fit within the Length constraints as specified by   [RFC8203].  For example, the phrase: 'Planned work to add switch to   stack.  Completion time - 30 minutes' has length 65 bytes.  Its   translation in Russian   '&#1055;&#1083;&#1072;&#1085;&#1086;&#1074;&#1099;&#1077;   &#1088;&#1072;&#1073;&#1086;&#1090;&#1099; &#1087;&#1086; &#1076;&#10   86;&#1073;&#1072;&#1074;&#1083;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1102; &#1082;&#   1086;&#1084;&#1084;&#1091;&#1090;&#1072;&#1090;&#1086;&#1088;&#1072;&   #1074;   &#1089;&#1090;&#1077;&#1082;.&#1042;&#1088;&#1077;&#1084;&#1103; &#10   79;&#1072;&#1074;&#1077;&#1088;&#1096;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; -   30&#1084;&#1080;&#1085;&#1091;&#1090;' (See PDF for non-ASCII   character string) has length 139 bytes.Now you do not need to actually go read the draft in order to know everything you need to respond to the WGLC. :-)Thanks,?John> On Jul 25, 2019, at 5:25 PM, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:> > Greetings IDR: >  > The IDR WG call for input on draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-04.txt has received only 2 comments.  Since this is a draft that updates an operationally needed feature,  I am extending the WG LC until 8/6/2019.  >  > If you believe this draft is ready for publication, please respond to this WG LC. >  > Sue Hares >  > From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares> Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 9:13 AM> To: 'idr wg'> Subject: [Idr] WG LC for Extended BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication (bs) - draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-04.txt (7/9 to 7/23)>  > This begins a 2 week WG last call for draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-04.txt from July 9, 2019 to July 23, 2019. . >  > Please consider if you believe this revision of RFC8203 (Administrative Shutdown)> a)      Will benefit operational networks,> b)      is technically complete, and > c)       ready for publication. >  > In your comments, please indicate whether you ?support? or ?do not support? its publication. >  > This draft contains IPR notice that causes ?IPR warnings?.   The authors believe that this text is automatically generated by the IETF tools and the warning is not appropriate.   >  > As the shepherd, I am  investigating this issue.   If you have specific knowledge on this issue, you may send it to the list or to me directly. >  > Cheerily, Susan Hares >  ------------------------------Message: 3Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:12:54 -0700From: Nikos Triantafillis <nikos@apstra.com>To>To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>Cc>Cc: "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>rg>,	draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd@ietf.orgSubject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on	draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txtMessage-ID:	<CAEak8BNbL-myAqXe8xA9Z6OjjLrJia1zUmXG3tnCjUD5Vz4S2w@mail.gmail.com>Content-Typet-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"Support as co-author.Cheers,Nikos.-On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 2:34 PM Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:> This begins a 2 week WG LC on> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org which you can download> at:>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd/>>>> In your comments, indicate the following:>>>> a)      ?Support? or ?no support? for publication at this time,>> b)      Do you feel this draft will help aid in operational networks?>> c)       Is the technology ready for standardization?>>>> Cheerily, Susan Hares>>>-------------- next part --------------An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/attachments/20190725/fcd423b7/attachment.html>------------------------------Message: 4Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 22:22:07 +0000From: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>To>To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>om>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>Cc>Cc: "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org"	<draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org>Subjectubject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on	draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txtMessage-ID:	<DM5PR11MB20272956156A602ABD301A25C1C10@DM5PR11MB2027.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>	Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"Hi Sue/All,I support the progression of this document through WGLC. We have implementations and deployment of this draft.Thanks,KetanFrom: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>Sentt;Sent: 25 July 2019 17:34To: idr@ietf.orgCc: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd@ietf.orgSubject: WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txtThis begins a 2 week WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org> which you can download at:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd/In your comments, indicate the following:  1.  "Support" or "no support" for publication at this time,  2.  Do you feel this draft will help aid in operational networks?  3.  Is the technology ready for standardization?Cheerily, Susan Hares-------------- next part --------------An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/attachments/20190725/8a64ef43/attachment.html>------------------------------Subject: Digest Footer_______________________________________________Idr mailing listIdr@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr------------------------------End of Idr Digest, Vol 183, Issue 66************************************