Re: [Idr] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-06: (with DISCUSS)

["George, Wes" <[e-mail]>]

Though I do not want to see this document delayed any more, I would
actually prefer not to change the introduction unless WG consensus
changes. This was DISCUSSed (and discussed) during evaluation of -03, and
this was my response to Pete at the time:

"This one is a little bit of a grey area. It doesn't strictly require
interoperability, because its functionality is local to a given BGP
speaker. It doesn't make changes to the BGP Protocol per se but it does
describe the current behavior of something implemented in multiple
vendor-specific methods so that desired behavior is documented for future
implementers. While it is optional, it does modify BGP's behavior from the
strict interpretation of the relevant RFCs, and that could technically be
considered a protocol change. Since it was a question as to which status
(PS vs info) was appropriate, we solicited WG consensus, and PS was the
recommendation.
Some of the language used is to reflect the intent to codify existing
behavior so that as future changes to BGP are contemplated (most notably,
BGPSec), this is considered part of the protocol so that it doesn't get
"broken"."

The abstract and intro attempt to acknowledge this fact. I'm open to
suggestions on wording changes to make it clearer, but I do think that the
text that is there is useful and should not be removed altogether.

Thanks,

Wes



On 9/16/15, 11:38 PM, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On 9/16/15, 1:57 PM, "iesg on behalf of Ben Campbell"
><[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>Ben:
>
>Hi!
>
>>So, I think there is a misalignment. If the intent is indeed to define a
>>standard, then I suggest the abstract and first paragraph of introduction
>>be rewritten to align with that. If not, then it shouldn't be standards
>>track nor update 4271.
>
>Yes, we¹ll clean up the Introduction.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Alvaro.


Anything below this line has been added by my company’s mail server, I
have no control over it.
-----------


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.