Re: [Idr] Progressing draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis -- implementation reports?

I would tend to agree with John here. The clarification 5575bis brings is much needed. I would like to see the WG proceed with approvals and not hold it up for the IPv6 work. That are important as well but seem out of scope for this draft.

Just my 2 cents.

-Justin

> On Jun 26, 2018, at 11:47 AM, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> On Jun 26, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org <mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> An open point on the mailing list though has been whether the ipv6 flowspec work should be merged in.  See prior comments from Sue.
>> 
>> I'm personally ambivalent about doing that bit of merge work, but it's a good fit as long as the Working Group doesn't feel it's an issue to encumber the update to the core spec with the IPv6 stuff which is optional.  But if so, we'd need to see a merge to continue.
> 
> Unless I've missed it, there hasn't been an outcry from the WG to roll the work in. On the balance, my take (with co-chair propeller beanie on) is that since we are so far along with progressing 5575bis, and as Christop previously has pointed out, the original scope was set to be "clarification" and not more, we shouldn't hold it up further.
> 
> This is not to say the work isn't important or relevant, just that we have a doc pretty much ready for publication, respinning it now is maybe not the best use of anyone's time.
> 
> All that said, if I've missed discussion suggesting the WG *does* have consensus to re-open 5575bis (or that the consensus is ambiguous) I'm open to correction.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --John
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr