Re: [Idr] 2 week working group LC for draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines-07.txt (12/10 to 12/24)

"Simpson, Adam (Adam)" <adam.simpson@alcatel-lucent.com> Thu, 08 January 2015 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <adam.simpson@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E3EF1A884B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 08:59:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 ZjHdYDfo9Ylm for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 08:58:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-01.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9739B1A8AD6 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 08:58:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from us70tusmtp2.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.5.2.64]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 59C504E7844CB; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 16:58:30 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from US70UWXCHHUB02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70uwxchhub02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.49]) by us70tusmtp2.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id t08Gvl9A026128 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 8 Jan 2015 11:58:20 -0500
Received: from US70TWXCHMBA09.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.158]) by US70UWXCHHUB02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.49]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 11:57:55 -0500
From: "Simpson, Adam (Adam)" <adam.simpson@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "'John Leslie'" <john@jlc.net>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] 2 week working group LC for draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines-07.txt (12/10 to 12/24)
Thread-Index: AdAUbQ+FommVT3gzR9OteJIyUCpDMAG7Re/gA29NggAAEAp3AABwwXyAABJrB4A=
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 16:57:53 +0000
Message-ID: <D0D41FC4.59400%adam.simpson@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <015201d0146d$860c7ae0$922570a0$@ndzh.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA846961D9@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <D0D0438A.58CB3%adam.simpson@alcatel-lucent.com> <20150105212150.GA12406@verdi> <002501d02af0$a5e9b960$f1bd2c20$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <002501d02af0$a5e9b960$f1bd2c20$@ndzh.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.7.141117
x-originating-ip: [135.5.27.18]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <F819F17B3A91C042B6F28F5CBF680FB1@exchange.lucent.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/s8cRnVWICw-rtN5qy49Xdgwk9-s>
Cc: 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] 2 week working group LC for draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines-07.txt (12/10 to 12/24)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 16:59:01 -0000

Yes, thanks John. I agree that the current document has more of an
Informational feel. So unless there is other feedback from the list that¹s
probably the track we should follow.

N=2 for the ³advertise-N² mode was only the suggestion for a default
value. The document is clear that N should be configurable with values > 2
as well.

-Adam


On 2015-01-07, 10:10 PM, "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>; wrote:

>John:
>
>Thank you for the feedback on this draft as to the informational versus
>standards track. 
>
>Sue Hares
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Leslie
>Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 4:22 PM
>To: Simpson, Adam (Adam)
>Cc: idr wg; Susan Hares
>Subject: Re: [Idr] 2 week working group LC for
>draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines-07.txt (12/10 to 12/24)
>
>Simpson, Adam (Adam) <adam.simpson@alcatel-lucent.com>; wrote:
>> 
>> This draft was originally intended to be informational but the desire
>> to standardize at least one common path selection algorithm across all
>> implementations caused us to reconsider whether this should really be
>> standards track. I think we would still welcome input on this point.
>
>   Since you ask...
>
>   I think the draft would be very useful as Informational; but it feels a
>bit shy of the mark for Standards Track.
>
>   I really can't find an explanation of why the four choices were chosen
>for MANDATORY and OPTIONAL. I also doubt that "advertise-N" choice must be
>limited to N==2.
>
>   IMHO, this draft is not ready to publish as Proposed-Standard; and I
>don't see an imminent justification for the additional work to make it
>ready
>to publish on the Standards track.
>
>   Obviously, YMMV...
>
>--
>John Leslie <john@jlc.net>;
>
>_______________________________________________
>Idr mailing list
>Idr@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>