Re: [Idr] Update on advancement of rfc5575bis draft, implementations

Jeffrey Haas <> Wed, 15 May 2019 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE70C120021; Wed, 15 May 2019 14:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P7fdp6ruEgEI; Wed, 15 May 2019 14:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E582120106; Wed, 15 May 2019 14:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 688071E2D8; Wed, 15 May 2019 17:16:13 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 17:16:13 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <>
To: John Scudder <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, Hares Susan <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <00df01d4febe$87886010$96992030$> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Update on advancement of rfc5575bis draft, implementations
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: Wed, 15 May 2019 21:15:44 -0000


On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 09:24:20PM +0000, John Scudder wrote:
> I’ll add with my co-chair hat off and individual contributor hat on, to my way of thinking I would always choose FCFS over IETF Review, because it provides all the same benefits with less overhead. I guess you can argue that an “IETF Review” code point does benefit from the eponymous IETF Review, but practically speaking since we are at the point where WGLC has been completed and we’re virtually ready to advance the document, the review applied in either case will be exactly the same. So, if implementors are ready to go, they can have a code point before the end of the week with FCFS, whereas it will be longer than that if we do IETF Review/Early Allocation.

While I'm generally sympathetic to your point about FCFS being the faster of
the two, we're so close to being out the door on the RFC that IETF Review
with early allocation would be fine.  We might as well use it, or otherwise
just get reclassify it as FCFS as well. :-)

-- Jeff