IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lsvr] "Shortest Path Routing Extensions for BGP Protocol" - draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-10 Implementation Status

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 04 August 2020 13:25 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3726A3A0B6E for <lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 06:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 L-c5peK_i0KB for <lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 06:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32a.google.com (mail-wm1-x32a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32a]) (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 D971B3A0B6B for <lsvr@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 06:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32a.google.com with SMTP id g8so2677688wmk.3 for <lsvr@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 06:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9pGrL/XY/gN3lWesjdnLTc437yc/qc97eIUTyovufHs=; b=kcuVla4WB8tT/UWzChNgr/9kcLInte6xSoVu9Gd5fFP8P3qtxaUx0PetpM+6Wb3Guz ZhxWy9OGWFy+acJzyEitgxAiqYVH37otn9/wCiTzqMv7eAOflbwc0D7zairJgLJyWeEu 4vL19Zzg6N9gUqSfVHGwkZnizoNvpYEZMk4I+3zVemW59K4bl96LBFiTNuHM8cFj9ekG pVhY8AOGN/Xq2JfHsi6D1DsyR3JnM+VVT2sq98YYOfdOEwQkZkjNwlCs1P22mQgfvxj7 HNkhF0lH8C0Iw9jQTqNAz9Ooebaugmh7vihlFFbqP4dxfhXRNGXdG2X/Va63G4CFzk5t DjFw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9pGrL/XY/gN3lWesjdnLTc437yc/qc97eIUTyovufHs=; b=TCOAtNUWDOvVI/YyyZGdOrc2sBUvhu9gvlTDP/JqaPcJbcaXctvYKJndxRdudOTpOr CoAkxPYZ9QtL2E1I7g0QtjdWX6sPAvrSLu/ja6MQ/InKTku6DGpyC4cuBtGDPQbmzwRv PZ8cU85u/tzIWJt/FZZgs4AL6w5wzU4sCcznfvXxLOtW0RgKUDR3LQM93cITW0d33mXm LAlY6IptR3U7yO25OOYW6Y2L19N/i7dOQSu/I7YUW8p7ll8mwkE3OswOiEspxjNPQ58O edEX4C9m/CmnA6G+GQtGKYkIAqogxTp0cD5OuL+cLlF75GoweIzIvS06mnyXUDAgy0Wv E/CA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5301YzWaRhSBwtS1AwYJtosEmasf+drNHwkTtge+lOSTRLY1u6bo v4bX63KmWaITXhd9IYqM2gudGS2G6WOyXoEsvwU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwMWsMp9bvEt3Boo92rNh5wqbUhivKj+4V2bnUUFWW3reA4jX7kPL8fVVfbO4KKqCqxw6wKa3VptdcP0VWiDhU=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:6002:: with SMTP id u2mr4071908wmb.170.1596547540155; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 06:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 08:25:39 -0500
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <28F5DB96-6475-4E15-99DB-64601AD1A247@cisco.com>
References: <D351C7C2-C2D1-4CDD-9CAB-F4EFF3BE4DFC@cisco.com> <CAMMESszdrNAo+iYc2qMuZzLVe1oGG70_4NygQzFHyjAPaeiHKg@mail.gmail.com> <28F5DB96-6475-4E15-99DB-64601AD1A247@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 08:25:39 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMMESsxnqA3oKBV4LGRySvq7NmP++J1y+mhDZpwbKnB9MK4kGw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com>, "lsvr@ietf.org" <lsvr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsvr/MasLRvSN7gnjlniLsntCAEgUXrU>
Subject: Re: [Lsvr] "Shortest Path Routing Extensions for BGP Protocol" - draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-10 Implementation Status
X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Vector Routing <lsvr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsvr>, <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsvr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsvr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr>, <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 13:25:43 -0000

On August 3, 2020 at 4:42:51 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:


Acee:

Hi!


...
> > Note that I don’t think it is necessary to publish the implementation
> > report draft as a RFC.
>
> Speaking as a working group chair of another WG, I’m generally so pleased
> when people do this type of work and do it well that I prefer to publish
> it as an informational draft.

I'm not sure if you meant publication as an Informational RFC, or for
the document to remain in the repository as a draft.

While the content of implementation reports can be useful at the time,
the information quickly becomes stale because it was a view of a
moment in time.  Archiving such information (as an RFC) makes it hard
to update and keep the community up to date, vs leaving the document
in draft form or use the Wiki (as idr does, for example).  Personally
I think that the value of publishing that type of information as an
RFC is lost with publication.

Having said that, if the WG wants to freeze the implementation
information in time, I would prefer it to be included in an appendix
of the specification.  If there is consensus to publish a separate
RFC, then I will insist with it being progressed with the main
specification.  I'll let the Chairs guide any discussion in the WG.


Thanks!

Alvaro.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email