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

Adrian: 

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? 

Sue

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

Hi,

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.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry

Cheers,
Adrian

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