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

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 02 November 2019 12:48 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A7AA12008A for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 05:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.996
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BwZ3BZE426S3 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 05:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42e.google.com (mail-pf1-x42e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB44F12008C for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 05:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42e.google.com with SMTP id q26so8836431pfn.11 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 02 Nov 2019 05:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=LjUng6KVxkveP81GpaRGNp+f+JpimXkYf2f+7tzYu1g=; b=P6IV4+RFGMu8BjfNQt2W3N7WTwFU00YlOxO0HHs9J4FNaonuKxY06L3bth5vkDVjyf zIHyuWyir5WxS/2lCFrQBuNZcRU/jujPpSHWn0I8efzX4waFVYoLt0xPnmlZzqMWpEqW PeCWCZiLrWH4k0Feax86G4odnjhSGukPcND5bKQ6p/qMFCNrNiXLwr/U0Q+BHHCh/sQp 3TfB2pYsH6zPq0cl+psKDnUFfhnLKSbffUZDh8THShvMmN9bnQ/NxtBIJWb3F6r87MQJ g8jUE6FbD1hLJj/sNVNsIhuLh+VKymMQY2gjimYkHEbCrMZQMb7WKtxCdTJLd4PnJrDa tKhQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=LjUng6KVxkveP81GpaRGNp+f+JpimXkYf2f+7tzYu1g=; b=KpjaonEiE5+T887rIajRFZnqVRvBFIKj629Ey8KABvl1Gv56fG1BIgwgGFl+9gJUC6 0lDGZmF0BwX0GoiaMYThSJvveVge7GAi1IbJgyU4mj70iaU+j8er1DX2WwJuVFBDSnTb GUNJ85ENLTSajR51yeJJAmSPIQO0MelwPXaveRhrUePrjEKUt75yN1qTfTLjChjlSYzA EBlt7bjW6s7iDhAt7Sg0E/8hWo6koR+jOeDtUvGqSeOWa5tPzuVReCdfEviOsB/NWHNK XkK9y51vna/rR5h+rBU+clwdMdECRonGTusHFKesr2CF8tUIdC4IwmatGTDyZTRB5CUQ PcmQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWqEbSyaz8v4U4eMZ/zjI8JrO2Y5Im1+n669c222uEFQeBJwRGl d2y2S4mU4eYkI+gLH3YPCysYKY3q
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqykFMbB1NmGrf89JZzmcSbkJnTrgXQTTwHHHkrODhRpJGRSWv41hlCXT/4CN3h6ngFZB3bLvg==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:1904:: with SMTP id z4mr19921478pgl.413.1572698875269; Sat, 02 Nov 2019 05:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [26.250.201.91] ([172.58.27.181]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r4sm11571823pfl.61.2019.11.02.05.47.53 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 02 Nov 2019 05:47:54 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-72B401BF-9BD6-4B1B-9E70-DC3DA8F8FDD9
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 13:47:51 +0100
Message-Id: <AEE6A721-A719-4C0D-B1FC-A313390B4639@gmail.com>
References: <00b801d59102$0b7b26c0$22717440$@olddog.co.uk>
Cc: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, John Scudder <jgs=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, idr@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <00b801d59102$0b7b26c0$22717440$@olddog.co.uk>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17A878)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zjOsGwnJPiexMK2DfomgjNI0OVs>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption of draft-farrel-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2019 12:48:00 -0000

Not sure if I reacted back then, I support the adoption.

Regards,
Jeff

> On Nov 1, 2019, at 23:17, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hello chairs, WG,
>  
> I may have taken my eye off the IDR list for a while, but it seems to me that my draft is languishing.
>  
> Did the WG last call complete? Did we decide to adopt or discard?
>  
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>  
> From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> 
> Sent: 09 August 2019 16:15
> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)' <ketant@cisco.com>om>; 'John Scudder' <jgs=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
> Cc: idr@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Idr] WG adoption of draft-farrell-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt
>  
> Adrian and WG:
>  
> <WG chair hat on>
> Ketan and his co-authors have been carefully working RFC7752bis
> prior to adopting in the WG.  However, given the comments to the list –
> I would like to make sure the WG is not rushed to address all known
> Issues in RFC752.
>  
> We can usually send through registry drafts quickly.
>  
> The WG can progress both drafts in parallel.
> <Chair hat off>
>  
> <wg member hat on>  
> I suggest we put both drafts as one of our
> Key milestones for IDR.
> <wg member hat off>
>  
> Cheers, Sue
>  
>  
>  
> From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 7:50 AM
> To: 'Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)'; 'John Scudder'
> Cc: idr@ietf.org; 'Hares Susan'
> Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption of draft-farrell-idr-bgp-ls-registry-02.txt
>  
> Hi Ketan,
>  
> Yes.
>  
> 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.
>  
> Best,
> Adrian
>  
> From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com> 
> Sent: 08 August 2019 11:47
> To: John Scudder <jgs=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>rg>; Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
> Cc: idr@ietf.org; Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>
> 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?
>  
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>  
> From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of John Scudder
> Sent: 06 August 2019 02:57
> To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
> Cc: idr@ietf.org; Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>
> 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.
>  
> —John
>  
> 
> On Aug 5, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> 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.
>  
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>  
> From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
> Sent: 27 July 2019 01:37
> To: idr@ietf.org
> 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
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_idr&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=hLt5iDJpw7ukqICc0hoT7A&m=m2Z21XyyBWfE7-JRpCBMd9mW5AU5UenqFDS0r2Wjmi0&s=n3RyYdF5g5JgzuEcUrayd07c_83FTSigaOWGlLpIku0&e= 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr