IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Lsr] Re: Adoption of draft-many-lsr-power-group

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Mon, 20 July 2026 19:56 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
X-Original-To: lsr@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: lsr@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1026D11ABD879; Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1784577368; bh=DPKWZehAaXRo9sHV0nSt5hCrO6Wq1eG/9Kr9kXmygIA=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To; b=IHQWOUzByBbwcGLq69qIrD+6l1/QHA1VGv9J/ujuh+JU2Ystmdo2vI5ukOsMc+/Nb ot+3BgT4XZtpQNAdY2LbTGYvzsbQGps/RTedxplOxxLbBqe9s/WNOEEnURmPHP1K5N eH2qRpjPDjDJTUehVPUcm/d/EbkaO6cjieBuRfcs=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.994
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.994 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, MPART_ALT_DIFF=0.79, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=no 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 rW5mMjLe-JAX; Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A383C11ABD876; Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [139.28.87.215]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 112327D0AD; Mon, 20 Jul 2026 19:56:01 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-C6C867FA-72F9-4C44-BC69-7F466214AA5C"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 21:55:48 +0200
Message-Id: <15EE222C-1784-41F5-9C92-95BADDE09EB8@chopps.org>
References: <CAMj-N0KLEGPmVTOyOvj4VZs-NLYdrGz+yeckdQ8A1NX8K40ydQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMj-N0KLEGPmVTOyOvj4VZs-NLYdrGz+yeckdQ8A1NX8K40ydQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (23F84)
Message-ID-Hash: TL6TEHPF7MXZWYI2BBAIMAD2I3VIRYHF
X-Message-ID-Hash: TL6TEHPF7MXZWYI2BBAIMAD2I3VIRYHF
X-MailFrom: chopps@chopps.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-lsr.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Les Ginsberg <ginsberg@cisco.com>, lsr-chairs <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>, lsr <lsr@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Lsr] Re: Adoption of draft-many-lsr-power-group
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/n88M6oDN_EYLfcGPewM__7dcyT4>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:lsr-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:lsr-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:lsr-leave@ietf.org>

Expert hat on: I do not believe Les is raising the bar. We (reg experts) have followed the SHOULD advice rather consistently. We have always pushed for WG adoption first. It’s why I mentioned the order, adoption and then allocate, during the presentation. Yes, SHOULD is not MUST, but it’s also not MAY. :)

I think it’s worth giving the normal route a chance here before we look to the exceptional one. 

Thanks,
Chris.

On Jul 20, 2026, at 20:12, Tony Li <tony1athome@gmail.com> wrote:


Les,

What I wrote is correct.  Please read what you quoted.  That's a SHOULD, not a MUST.

You don't get to raise the bar on a whim.

Tony


On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 6:36 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) - ginsberg at http://cisco.com" rel="nofollow">cisco.com <mailforwards@cloudmails.net> wrote:

Tony –

 

I don’t want to start an argument – just want to set the record straight.

 

https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml states:

 

“Note

For IS-IS registries and value ranges maintained via the "Expert

Review" [RFC8126] registration procedure, guidance for IESG-designated

experts can be found in [RFC7370].”

 

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7370.html#section-4" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7370.html#section-4 states:

 

“2.  The Designated Experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise

       from I-Ds that have already been accepted as Working Group

       documents or that are planned for progression as AD Sponsored

       documents in the absence of a suitably chartered Working Group.”

 

So what you say below is not correct.

 

   Les

 

From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 8:50 AM
To: lsr-chairs <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>
Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Lsr] Adoption of draft-many-lsr-power-group

 

Hi,

 

I would like to formally request that we start an adoption poll of draft-many-lsr-power-group.

 

I would also like to formally request code point assignment for this document.  The relevant code points are all under "Expert Review" and do not require formal adoption before code point allocation.  We would greatly prefer not to squat on code point values if we do not have to.

 

Regards,

Tony

 

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status