IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] EIGRP and the Design Choices draft

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 11 May 2015 20:36 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76DF11A902A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2015 13:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 wprIoSkF7RYF for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2015 13:36:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x229.google.com (mail-pa0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::229]) (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 C92EB1A9022 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2015 13:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pabtp1 with SMTP id tp1so118606485pab.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2015 13:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=lMH0FeFBvG31Qx9gliINiHne4G5TBHhHCPooQIVeSZk=; b=KAvHFI8QiCtojfQEzq7x3pn1YZTR1mIV7GNfJT/tqI3hmQHjilWk+gFid6XMApenVF kFlVtcjzjUuUm5zlAwIXoV3OYLAv+P1xMAx1uCGaelDQ9UTkX7JYz6+fj1+KrYBq5nKt hEwM0LHS5xIRxYxmynIl2jLJxx1bujhH9nUEU3c3332yiEAp3vgTwOFdxAlzHEKPYKdH J84ckjCB8WayJbloDb5TGFn97/ia2CDpi5bwvoJMl+m6J/6a7qUdPpVvsxKmA2igwt41 EI5a4hSqZ5ylBLR4sEBGBz8TRe1Vkljarm4m93XrWEKq6Tq4M+CNT4G2fsNFCLw0ack/ BALg==
X-Received: by 10.68.205.226 with SMTP id lj2mr21645739pbc.52.1431376601450; Mon, 11 May 2015 13:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:54d7:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:54d7:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id gj5sm13949904pbb.22.2015.05.11.13.36.38 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 11 May 2015 13:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <555112D8.3000008@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 08:36:40 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Philip Matthews <philip_matthews@magma.ca>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <E1B62D40-18AE-47D6-9D3F-27F9300AE4B9@magma.ca>
In-Reply-To: <E1B62D40-18AE-47D6-9D3F-27F9300AE4B9@magma.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/CI6O5HdtfBGCYtZW8c9_oSZoVvc>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] EIGRP and the Design Choices draft
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 20:36:43 -0000

On 12/05/2015 03:38, Philip Matthews wrote:
> Folks:
> 
> Victor and I have been talking with the chairs about the Design Choices draft, and have convinced us act on a request from Michael Ackermann to extend the Design Choices draft to cover EIGRP.

If I'm not mistaken, that's a proprietary protocol that isn't even described in an
RFC (although there seems to be a stalled draft under consideration as an
Independent Submission RFC). While I don't object to describing reality, I think
you need to explain *why* it's appropriate to do this in an IETF stream draft.

If you go ahead, I would suggest putting this topic in an appendix.

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email