Re: [Sidrops] [WGLC] draft-ietf-sidrops-rp - ENDS: Mar 7, 2019

Di Ma <> Mon, 18 March 2019 12:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D7FC12799B; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 05:41:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gg8-_IFDP08L; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 05:41:10 -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 E6A2F127916; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 05:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=CONTINUE; BC=0.1289531|-1; CH=green; DM=CONTINUE|CONTINUE|true|0.339914-0.0401567-0.619929; FP=0|0|0|0|0|-1|-1|-1; HT=e02c03275;; NM=1; PH=DS; RN=5; RT=5; SR=0; TI=SMTPD_---.E9dVuXm_1552912861;
Received: from fp:SMTPD_---.E9dVuXm_1552912861) by; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 20:41:02 +0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
From: Di Ma <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 20:41:00 +0800
Cc: Chris Morrow <>,,,
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Nick Hilliard <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] [WGLC] draft-ietf-sidrops-rp - ENDS: Mar 7, 2019
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 12:41:15 -0000


> 在 2019年3月17日,19:15,Nick Hilliard <> 写道:
> Chris Morrow wrote on 17/03/2019 08:42:
>> Please have a read through this document, comment/complain/etc as
>> appropriate. The decision on forward progress or necessary edits ends
>> Mar 07, 2019.
> Mar 7?  That doesn't leave much time.
> Overall this looks like a useful summary for RP implementers, but care will need to be taken in future to ensure that the doc is kept current.

You are making sense here in terms of keeping it current.

We authors don’t think this will be a big issue for this draft is an informational document intended to provide readers a single point of learning about the ‘fundamental' functions that an RP should have in the context of routing. 

Since SIDR WG has been concluded, we don’t expect many/frequent changes regarding ‘protocol' that an RP should handle will take place. 

Granted, if there is going to be a fundamental change, this document will be updated by the RFC that brings about the change as we see many RFCs are being updated today.

> Is the draft missing a reference to rfc 8416?

Good point.

We don’t see RFC 8416 is a necessary functionality that an RP MUST support since we expect draft-ietf-sidrops-rp  is to gather basic/necessary functions. 

Yet  we might as well mentioned RFC 8416 in case the reader wants to acquire local control by using RFC 8416. 

I am one of the co-authors of RFC 8416, happy to add it in :-)

> The document needs a multiple-pass edit for both style and grammar before it can be handed off to the RFC Editor.  I had a look at this earlier today, but there's too much to handle in an email - it needs someone to sit down with the xml source and spend a couple of hours hacking at it.

We authors would appreciate very much if you may bother to help polish this draft. 



> Nick
> _______________________________________________
> Sidrops mailing list