Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-abraitis-bgp-version-capability-08, to end September 25

[John Scudder <[e-mail]>]

Hi Folks,

It seems to me that the discussion hasn’t concluded and we are still having productive discussion. Hence, I would like to extend the period for discussion by another week, now to conclude on October 2.

Thanks,

—John

> On Sep 8, 2020, at 3:11 PM, John Scudder <jgs=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> You may recall that we had a recent discussion about draft-abraitis-bgp-version-capability-07, which was on the ISE track. After some discussion both on and off list, the author has updated the document and requested WG adoption of https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-abraitis-bgp-version-capability-08__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WoDk_v2eZvQXLUQzQJ6wuGJfnX3PrXgjTEuSzOrPZemMeRV2jticFxEkbOH_dg$ .
> 
> This begins the usual two-week discussion period. Please send your support, opposition, comments, discussion, before September 25.
> 
> The recent thread is here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/q4pUI7jKnYEL_5Cr0mUfoHopY74/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WoDk_v2eZvQXLUQzQJ6wuGJfnX3PrXgjTEuSzOrPZemMeRV2jticFxGnDkHeFQ$  and an earlier thread, when Donatas first brought the subject up on the list, is here: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zHNioWl24mdTthQA0O4OatZ2uy4/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WoDk_v2eZvQXLUQzQJ6wuGJfnX3PrXgjTEuSzOrPZemMeRV2jticFxG1g7uXDA$
> 
> It’s my impression from these two threads that there’s potentially interest from the WG in tackling the problem; it’s less clear to me that the WG supports the particular design outlined in the current draft. It would be helpful if you’d address both of these when commenting, and keep in mind that as usual WG adoption of the draft wouldn't mean “this is the exact solution”, it would mean “this is a good starting point.” Finally, as a result of the recent discussion, there’s been some renewed interest in draft-ietf-idr-operational-message. One suggestion (which I can’t put my finger on in the archives right now, sorry) was to turn draft-ietf-idr-operational-message into a pure framework document, i.e. define no TLVs in it, just the transport. If done, IMO that might open the door to more easily allowing a draft like the present one to adopt it as a transport.
> 
> The floor is open for your comments!
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> —John
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WoDk_v2eZvQXLUQzQJ6wuGJfnX3PrXgjTEuSzOrPZemMeRV2jticFxHntHgWMA$