Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-06.txt

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

Robert,

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 09:25:51PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Let's note that I had similar concerns on RT definition and more expressed
> to the list in Nov 2016 however they were not considered :(.

I'm in my typical far behind on list mode, so I may have missed this. :-)

I agree the other structured formats are worth considering.

A challenge the authors of the draft have is canonical formatting for new
structured formats while at the same time providing access to the opaquely
until they have been thus defined.

I would urge the chairs to request attention from IDR and BESS as part of
the WGLC on this document.  Sue Hares responded earlier in the thread, so it
at least has her attention.

-- Jeff

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
> Date: Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-routing-types
> To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> 
> Hi Acee,
> 
> SOO has similar format to RT however RT is defined only partially. There is
> existing extension to RFC4360 in the form of RFC5668 which defines new
> structure of both RT and SOO (Route Origin).
> 
> Also I think there important this draft needs to define type for VRF as VRF
> as such is used across a lot of different applications way beyond original
> L3VPN use intention.
> 
> And I think there is many more common elements ... just think of recent geo
> coordinates shred by 4 WGs (if not more ...).
> 
> Thx,
> R.