IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Idr] Re: Concluded: WG Adoption call for draft-hegdearavind-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-ext, ends 31 October, 2025.

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Mon, 10 November 2025 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@pfrc.org>
X-Original-To: idr@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: idr@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFCE586FECF6; Mon, 10 Nov 2025 08:46:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sptNm9vbW0u9; Mon, 10 Nov 2025 08:46:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B54BA86FEC9F; Mon, 10 Nov 2025 08:45:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (99-188-202-8.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [99.188.202.8]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E35291E24F; Mon, 10 Nov 2025 11:45:46 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.10\))
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <DM4PR11MB7326154EBD4B80548CF48742DDCEA@DM4PR11MB7326.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 11:45:46 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A4FE64DE-FB27-4C8D-96EC-9A89DAC33255@pfrc.org>
References: <176071622546.1543624.10131008039609791776@dt-datatracker-84f8f646b-tg6mn> <08D2C798-6F81-4BAE-976C-710DE8DDAA46@pfrc.org> <20251103221724.GD3948@pfrc.org> <DM4PR11MB7326154EBD4B80548CF48742DDCEA@DM4PR11MB7326.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Aravind Babu MahendraBabu (aramahen)" <aramahen@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.10)
Message-ID-Hash: G4ELGCHA6MEDMUZNC56JLK2TFR6FMHRI
X-Message-ID-Hash: G4ELGCHA6MEDMUZNC56JLK2TFR6FMHRI
X-MailFrom: jhaas@pfrc.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-idr.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: idr <idr@ietf.org>, "draft-hegdearavind-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-ext@ietf.org" <draft-hegdearavind-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-ext@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Idr] Re: Concluded: WG Adoption call for draft-hegdearavind-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-ext, ends 31 October, 2025.
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/w0-Wc45jbc2IVQiECfYij1nJ244>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:idr-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:idr-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:idr-leave@ietf.org>

Aravind,

> On Nov 10, 2025, at 11:37 AM, Aravind Babu MahendraBabu (aramahen) <aramahen@cisco.com> wrote:
> Thanks for adopting the draft. 
> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-ext-00 has been posted and pending on chair's approval. 

This has been cleared through the queue.

If there's an associated github, let's get that also linked to the draft.

> 
> Regarding the state of the Flex-algo work in LSR, the following are already covered as part of this draft. 
> 	• RFC 9502
> 	• RFC 9843
> 	• draft-ietf-lsr-igp-flex-algo-reverse-affinity [In WG-LC]

Excellent news.  That means we could progress this document quickly!

> 
> The below are the recent and related updates in LSR which we plan to add to the draft. 
> 	• draft-ietf-lsr-flex-soft-dataplane
> 	• draft-ietf-lsr-algorithm-related-adjacency-sid 

Not excellent news - this is scope creep that wasn't part of the original adoption cycle.

I can see on a brief flip through of these drafts on how they are also "algorithm associated".  In the case of the later one, it seems to be through several LSR revisions.  However, the former one has just hit -00 in LSR.

What's the authors' case for holding up publication on the first three items in the first part of this message for these two new items?  Are they so tightly bound that it makes sense to only advance them together?  If so, what's the trajectory to publish the latter two drafts?


-- Jeff

v2.45.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status