Re: [Idr] Changes to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry

Susan Hares <> Tue, 08 December 2020 22:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D738A3A126C; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 14:21:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.948
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iFsyc_OQRTGy; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 14:21:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F052C3A126B; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 14:21:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: "Susan Hares" <>
To: <>, "'IDR List'" <>
Cc: <>
References: <0e3501d6cda2$fbf19d40$f3d4d7c0$>
In-Reply-To: <0e3501d6cda2$fbf19d40$f3d4d7c0$>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 17:21:15 -0500
Message-ID: <003a01d6cdb0$78d288d0$6a779a70$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGajGRKThIcpkdudESaynUGnDXA0apmR71A
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 201207-4, 12/07/2020), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Changes to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 22:21:36 -0000


Since I do not want things to "get it the way", 
Let  me ask if you are ready for another WG LC on this text? 


-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 3:45 PM
To: 'IDR List'
Subject: [Idr] Changes to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry


Thanks to all for the useful input and sorry for the long delay while
"things" got in the way.

I made some changes to the draft according to Alvaro's comments and then
updated the DE guidance per the discussions on list.

Ketan noted that point 6 of the guidance in RFC 7370 talks about "timeouts"
per RFC 7120. That only applies to early allocations, and that's not what
we're doing. I think it is still worth carrying text about what happens if
the document never becomes an RFC, so I have retained something similar, but
different. I hope this is consistent with what Les said.

Acee additionally suggested that code point requests should be "fully
transparent to the LSR list". I haven't added this, but it would be simple
to do if there is support for it.

Since the text changes are pretty much the whole draft, the easiest thing
seems to be to post an update and then invite you to review and comment. So
that's what I have done.


Idr mailing list