[Idr] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-04: (with DISCUSS)

Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 16 March 2021 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietf.org
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A00CE3A0DBC; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 11:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, Jie Dong <jie.dong@huawei.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, jie.dong@huawei.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.27.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <161591995518.18228.12806096709938520666@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 11:39:15 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/jm6Fk-gzGfDGTLQFGPbDLQ2Tk5g>
Subject: [Idr] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-04: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 18:39:16 -0000

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-04: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


I would like to understand the intent of this document a little better.

RFC 8126 subtly implies that "Expert Review" is a little laxer than
"specification required". But the guidance to experts in this draft seems to
closely match "IETF Review" (sec 4.8 of 8126) except that it allows documents
to get an allocation at an earlier stage in the process. The shepherd comment
that "RFC Required" was an alternative proposal also indicates that the intent
to become more, not less, strict. Indeed, the main change appears to be
eliminating allocations to non-IETF-stream documents.

So why not simply change the registry to "IETF Review" and allow provisional
allocations? It would be much easier to use established mechanisms and standard
definitions than rewriting them in this document. Is the SHOULD in Sec 2.1
carrying a lot of weight here?