Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-10.txt (6/4 to 6/18)(.

Hi Susan, list,

Based upon reading -11:

> 1) Is this specification ready for publication? 

Yes, I think this document is ready for publication.

> 2) Are there deployments where this BGP protocol extension is valuable? 

I believe a vast majority of deployments will benefit from this simple
(i.e. elegant) but powerful extension, and therefore I fully support it.

> 3) Do you believe the error code handling is ready for publication? 

No opinion, I do not feel knowledgable/experienced enough to give a hard
yes/no here.

Small nit, Sec 6:
"The purpose of this attribute is to guarantee that once _a_ route"

 luuk

On Thu  4 Jun 2020, 17:19, Susan Hares wrote:
> This begins a 2 week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-10.txt
> 
> >From 6/4 to 6/18/2020.  
> 
>  
> 
> There are 3 implementations:   BIRD (1.76, 2.05) , FRR, and Mikrotik. 
> 
> The BIRD and FRR implementations interoperate. 
> 
> I do not have details on Mikrotik.  
> 
>  
> 
> Details on the  interoperability are on the following IDR wiki page: 
> 
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy
> 
>  
> 
> Only one  error handling issues exists on the ability of BIRD 
> 
> to send Role Mismatch (Open Error (2), subcode 8).  
> 
> Another protocol was assigned to subcode 8.  
> 
>  
> 
> Please comment on the following questions: 
> 
> 1) Is this specification ready for publication? 
> 
> 2) Are there deployments where this BGP protocol extension is valuable? 
> 
> 3) Do you believe the error code handling is ready for publication? 
> 
>  
> 
> The shepherd for this draft is Susan Hares.  
> 
> During the WG LC, the shepherd's report will be sent. 
> 
>  
> 
> Cheers, 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 

> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr