Re: [Idr] WG adoption of draft-farrell-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt

"Adrian Farrel" <> Thu, 08 August 2019 11:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B1212006F for <>; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 04:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mAbI1LJEqPgH for <>; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 04:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F68C12014F for <>; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 04:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x78Bo2WW024614; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 12:50:02 +0100
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18E422203A; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 12:50:02 +0100 (BST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F355222032; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 12:50:01 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ( [] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x78BnwDb011008 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 8 Aug 2019 12:49:59 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <>
To: "'Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)'" <>, 'John Scudder' <>
Cc:, 'Hares Susan' <>
References: <1564187800_127314@FUMC-WEB2> <046501d54ba2$6169da90$243d8fb0$> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 12:49:57 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <01d001d54ddf$683c0f70$38b42e50$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01D1_01D54DE7.CA02C160"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--23.306-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--23.306-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--23.306100-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: CxmI61mtwh9or4mPA3EMtnFPUrVDm6jtTDUWYQJYPF1a1yhTwm1zufgg gX6vKSkKfMtvnnFP0Xi86gBmT/zuYE6L74JlBxByelGHXZKLL2vkY2blxNFpR0+86maMM3aS75c fMCEy7icwYORgHhqXGy57quJVib+HhBH2Q9UT6OdKLU6ddI5N4rzETYfYS4xZg0J62EvBjN1sKD czfQpJ01uvAp1PHNfUSAABl2Xm4hsqWN+rkPuqzZVRzPxemJL0mdrHMkUHHq8TjfkO3pb+WD53U iKoi7xOesSI/PXMJUaol1EHh/THK1k46F2Cy//QamejoqUad3p9m5tDcb5SYZuQSXVIw/hV5Nei QRB8ToXJHPKycfLuHnK3M4ABSQW+NRmBHSJf1CjiHyvyXeXh5qbsRRaTaNLRD5cyUgWQb9W2p0J Je+orO/nbZJADsQa9eNcC+JOnZhkVEwy4EjJ/QvSG/+sPtZVkdTQEktNzChzDEFKtpdD23wMTqT +LpjRFL05nWg7if/ApW5WIjBhq2EKxYtLWeayuCbqZbMjTXce/5CDVP/Qsfla2N+WwiEPwEeWUG BiCoDVWRNhSC2S3jhqY8vdG07WNf4gdHDlBF9iF3ltzGc7tO2eKMm8nChkmEd+K6O5Nt535J+oZ QuK8zP91gmVjVa5ijIIhMlejU+5HW+94FA8JF8G0UNgaZpYq2gp+A6golzbXEtbQ4pfyI8h4BC6 Bkw0EW3I0dGGaO18CWVEw1sp8bdrwCJH+dHmDwpU1WSBl38geIblhH0Sn6V0FI4GADitFf2vBu6 Y1pf0igAsGa3qgmkw/p9NvcegBhO6mbIfPFo+eAiCmPx4NwGmRqNBHmBve1B0Hk1Q1KyI9euiYe 3o8eEprfkiB9+n/4kYXbobxJbKl/MtrTwS4ULdyE0Cy/b7emh8ii3+V88ulkLPGwMtNllrZY/cR IL9Tc+KfEQBgpgg=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption of draft-farrell-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt
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: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 11:50:15 -0000

Hi Ketan,




We’re assuming that 7752bis will take a while to progress through the working group (I might be wrong) while we could advance draft-farrel-idr-bgp-ls-registry pretty fast.


If I’m wrong we should simply roll my draft into 7752bis and be done.


If I’m right:

*	My draft runs to completion
*	7752bis needs to obsolete 7752 and the RFC that my draft will become, and the IANA section has to be updated to reflect what the registry will say at that time.





From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <> 
Sent: 08 August 2019 11:47
To: John Scudder <>; Adrian Farrel <>
Cc:; Hares Susan <>
Subject: RE: [Idr] WG adoption of draft-farrell-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt


Hi All,


I obviously support this “easing of process overhead” for BGP-LS code point allocations. Apologies for not responding earlier.


Adrian, can you please also let know if the same text needs to be also updated in draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis which is also up for WG adoption and would result in obsoleting RFC7752?





From: Idr < <> > On Behalf Of John Scudder
Sent: 06 August 2019 02:57
To: Adrian Farrel < <> >
Cc: <> ; Hares Susan < <> >
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption of draft-farrell-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt


Well obviously I (with my “working group member” rubber mask and fright wig) kind of want them but I was holding off on saying so because that's kind of obvious.  


To reiterate for others’ benefit why I think this is worthwhile vs. early allocation:


- It reflects the author’s original intent, for whatever that’s worth. (The WG’s current intent is more important.)

- It provides the minimum of red tape, less even than early allocation.

- Because the number space is large, resolving the tension between red tape and the risk of something silly being allocated in favor of permissiveness is OK.

- Let’s not forget there’s still at least two humans in the loop (the Designated Expert and IANA).


That said, if the WG can’t generate enough enthusiasm to say “yes please” then I won’t cry, although I also won’t (with “WG co-chair” spangled epaulets and cravat on) feel as sympathetic next time someone tells me it’s too hard to get a code point.




On Aug 5, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Adrian Farrel < <> > wrote:


Hi WG,


I just want to rattle the bars of the cage a bit, here.


John (reliably) informs me that he had a number of conversations about the BGP-LS registries and their allocation policies: people (it seems) wanted more-relaxed rules.


It is possible that the advocates are the authors of the set of drafts that have just been pushed forward for “early allocation” and so no one cares any more.


Or it is possible that everyone is too busy.


Or, perhaps, no one wants these changes.





From: Idr < <>> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: 27 July 2019 01:37
To:  <>
Subject: [Idr] WG adoption of draft-farrell-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt


This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-farrel-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt.


Let the discussion begin and in midst of your comments please remember to include "support" or "no support".



Adrian enjoy the discussion.


Cheerily  Sue




Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7 edge, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

Idr mailing list