[Idr] Second Try: draft-jhjm-idr-last-as-reservations as WG document

"John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net> Mon, 01 July 2013 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <jgs@juniper.net>
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 19BB111E825F for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 12:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.033
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.033 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.501, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zgBEg2580Qcp for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 12:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from db9outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (mail-db9lp0252.outbound.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.252]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D588B11E826E for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 12:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail89-db9-R.bigfish.com (10.174.16.230) by DB9EHSOBE034.bigfish.com (10.174.14.97) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:46:29 +0000
Received: from mail89-db9 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail89-db9-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C1A0800C2 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:46:29 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:66.129.224.50; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: 0
X-BigFish: VPS0(zzc85fh103dKzz1f42h1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6h1082kzzz2fh2a8h683h839hd25he5bhf0ah1288h12a5h12bdh137ah139eh1441h1504h1537h162dh1631h1662h1758h1898h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1b2bh1bceh1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dc1h1dfeh1dffh1e23h1e64h1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail89-db9: domain of juniper.net designates 66.129.224.50 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.129.224.50; envelope-from=jgs@juniper.net; helo=P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ; -HQ.jnpr.net ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: CIP:132.245.2.21; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BN1PRD0512HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT
Received: from mail89-db9 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail89-db9 (MessageSwitch) id 1372707988350880_32734; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:46:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from DB9EHSMHS025.bigfish.com (unknown [10.174.16.243]) by mail89-db9.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50ED62C004B for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:46:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (66.129.224.50) by DB9EHSMHS025.bigfish.com (10.174.14.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:46:28 +0000
Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 12:46:26 -0700
Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 12:46:25 -0700
Received: from va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (216.32.180.30) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 12:58:14 -0700
Received: from mail9-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.250) by VA3EHSOBE013.bigfish.com (10.7.40.63) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:46:24 +0000
Received: from mail9-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail9-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50B47E00CE for <idr@ietf.org.FOPE.CONNECTOR.OVERRIDE>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:46:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail9-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail9-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1372707982930205_15523; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:46:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from VA3EHSMHS007.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.226]) by mail9-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D550B2C004F for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:46:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BN1PRD0512HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (132.245.2.21) by VA3EHSMHS007.bigfish.com (10.7.99.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:46:22 +0000
Received: from [172.28.130.210] (66.129.232.2) by pod51010.outlook.com (10.255.193.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.324.0; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:46:21 +0000
From: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8226C7BA-8589-450E-A481-834EC1850E2D"
Message-ID: <4B5C8A63-E550-4C49-BE4B-F169A78CF023@juniper.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 15:46:18 -0400
To: "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
X-Originating-IP: [66.129.232.2]
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
Subject: [Idr] Second Try: draft-jhjm-idr-last-as-reservations as WG document
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 19:46:38 -0000

Folks,

On May 29 the authors requested WG adoption of draft-jhjm-idr-last-as-reservations-00. There was not much response -- two supportive replies, not counting authors. This is not enough to declare "WG consensus" or much of anything else.

A short summary for those who aren't familiar with the draft: It basically says "the last ASNs are already reserved, please be careful with them". This seems to the chairs to be obviously true and useful to document, but maybe it's SO obvious that WG members are not bothering to say anything. It also seems to us that this doesn't demand much work from the WG and is almost ready for publication as-is -- unless of course we're wrong and there's controversy about the draft.

So let's try this again. Please do reply, by July 8. In particular, if you feel that we are mistaken and the draft is NOT a "no-brainer" for the WG, you should say that because in this specific case, we might make an exception and apply the rule "silence gives consent".

Thanks!

--John and Sue