Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt (2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021) - no consensus + Next steps

Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Sat, 20 February 2021 16:45 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 840823A1575 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 08:45:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.348
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.4, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 SRk9J1ZPRwFz for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 08:45:09 -0800 (PST)
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 F08F93A1573 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 08:45:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=50.107.98.72;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: idr@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 11:44:54 -0500
Message-ID: <00cf01d707a7$bc976410$35c62c30$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D0_01D7077D.D3C330D0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdcHppXeCc/5nQ4oRW6xYVdqdTquKg==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 210220-4, 02/20/2021), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oGf3ovdEq6Fw0x3su425y6EPJy8>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-wang-idr-rd-orf-05.txt (2/4/2021 to 2/18/2021) - no consensus + Next steps
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: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 16:45:11 -0000

Aijun and co-authors and IDR participants: 

 

Thank you for the lively discussion on IDR regarding this draft.   It is
obvious there is interest in this topic, but no consensus on accepting this
draft in its current form.  

 

The 3 co-chairs of IDR have been discussing this work for the past 2 weeks
in our meeting.  As Jeff mentioned earlier this week, we'd like to see the
problem broken down into the local AS level and push-back through-out the
web of remote BGP Peers.  We encourage the authors and other IDR
participants to discuss the local AS level solution on 

 

[Idr] rd-orf problem clarification at the local level thread.  

 

Please use this thread to clarify this problem.  Based on this
clarification, perhaps the authors can split their work into two parts.  

 

There issues with consensus this solution's push-back process past the local
AS.  These include: definition of the problem, determining if there are gaps
in current solutions (Prefix-ORF), IPR issues on proposed solution, and
additional refinement of the solution.    

 

Prior to any consideration of the solution beyond the local AS, the IDR
chairs would like to see a clear definition of the problem in a draft.
This draft may not be published, but it will help the IDR chairs and the WG
have a clear description of the problem. 

 

Cheers, Sue