[Idr] Re: Working Group adoption check, RFC 4360-bis, ending 5 September, 2025.

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

There being no substantive objections, the work is adopted.  Nat, please re-issue as draft-ietf-idr-rfc4360-bis.

Thanks to everyone who's provided feedback during the review period.  The core details motivating the bis are likely in a stable state after discussion.  

The remaining work is to craft an appropriate IANA considerations section.  Whether this ends up being a targeted rewrite of the existing IANA considerations or a substantive rewrite that subsumes the IANA registry updates is still being explored.

Thanks in particular to Nat for volunteering to wrangle the text.

A final note that discussions with the ADs on how best to recognize prior authors that are no longer active in the IETF will continue.

Issues will continue to be tracked on github:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-rfc4360-bis/issues

-- Jeff (for the Chairs)


> On Aug 22, 2025, at 3:22 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> IDR, BESS,
> 
> During the work driven by draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth, the issue of originating non-transitive was brought up and partially discussed in the use case work for draft-ietf-bess-ebgp-dmz.  As discussed during IDR sessions at IETFs 122 and 123, the preferred solution for addressing the ambiguities in non-transitivity was to do a small -bis for RFC 4360.  Nat Kao has kindly agreed to be our editor to move this process along. This document, and issues vs. it, will be managed in the IDR github.[1]
> 
> Since this is IDR chair commissioned work to address this gap, it's our intention to adopt this work.  However, the chairs would like to provide a review period to OBJECT to adoption.  That said, if you'd like to offer support for the work, or other technical comments, please do so in this thread!
> 
> This adoption check ends on 5 September.  Please note this overlaps the US Labor Day holiday and consider that in the timing of your request, in case that's relevant.