Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification - 1 week call for comments on early adoption (3/21 to 3/30)

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Thu, 23 March 2017 19:07 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 0C42D129BC8 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 12:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 EQZYRwTZjTxz for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 12:07:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.97]) (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 12BE9129B40 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 12:07:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=70.194.5.9;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: "'Acee Lindem \(acee\)'" <acee@cisco.com>, <idr@ietf.org>
References: <01c101d2a362$9b0feb80$d12fc280$@ndzh.com> <D4F88000.A3C18%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D4F88000.A3C18%acee@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 15:02:46 -0400
Message-ID: <009901d2a408$0f727a60$2e576f20$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_009A_01D2A3E6.88634B60"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIjntrJ1OvrQqBz2zRGPcIIzhG8agIY+czioPAHcmA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/o8fUZS2EvZmV7CLz8Xlp9ERavco>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification - 1 week call for comments on early adoption (3/21 to 3/30)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 23 Mar 2017 19:07:54 -0000

Acee: 

 

You raise a good point.  John and I debated the topic earlier this week.
However, since one of the co-chairs is a co-author, we decided it was best
to review until 3/30.   John made the point that he cannot change the draft
until 3/27, and Alvaro will need the changed draft for IANA.   Alvaro is
copied, and I will talk to IANA to make sure they can process this quickly.


 

Could you help us update the implementation part for cisco? 

 

Sue 

 

 

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 7:30 PM
To: Susan Hares; idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification - 1 week call for
comments on early adoption (3/21 to 3/30)

 

Hi Sue, 

 

Since early code point assignment is a topic in another thread and the
specter of bureaucracy was raised, I'd like to question as to why we need an
early adoption call?  Since the document  has already been accepted as a WG
document and there is implementation interest, isn't that enough to warrant
early code point adoption? 

 

Thanks,

Acee

 

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 7:18 PM
To: IDR List <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification - 1 week call for comments
on early adoption (3/21 to 3/30)

 

Greetings IDR: 

 

As John Scudder notes draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification-10.txt  will be
changed to have no suggested value.  

 

 

   IANA is requested to assign a new subcode in the "BGP Cease

   NOTIFICATION message subcodes" registry.  The suggested name for the

   code point is "Hard Reset".  The suggested value is 9.

 

Given this change, the IDR WG is asked to consider early code-point adoption
for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification, and any additions they wish to make
on the last WG LC (which found consensus).   With more details on 2
implementations (Cisco and Juniper), this will be forwarded to the IESG.  If
you wish to send any additional comments, since John is a co-authors -
please send them to me or to Jie Dong.   Jie will provide me a summary of
comments he's received. 

 

Will Cisco and Juniper people, please update the wiki page on the
implementation.   The authors an provide a section in the draft (if they
wish) with implementation - which will be removed before publication.  

 

Sue Hares