Re: draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt - WG Adoption call (10/14 to 10/28/2019)

Hi Christoph,

    Thanks much for your support and suggesting tilte draft-ietf-idr-bgp-rpd for the draft.
   This title is good. Would it be better to use draft-ietf-idr-bgp-routing-policy-distribution?
    The latter is similar to other titles such as draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-policy-path-segment.

Best Regards,
Huaimo
________________________________
From: Idr <[email protected]> on behalf of Susan Hares <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 9:10 AM
To: 'Christoph Loibl' <[email protected]>
Cc: 'idr wg' <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt - WG Adoption call (10/14 to 10/28/2019)

Christoph:
<WG member hat on, individual contributor>
I agree with your review of the title.

Sue Hares

-----Original Message-----
From: Christoph Loibl [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 2:43 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: idr wg
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt - WG Adoption call
(10/14 to 10/28/2019)

I know, I am very late with my support. I was unable to read the latest
version of the document till now.

I fully support the adoption (this happened already I know).

However, one thing I want to mention:

The technology described in the document is not really related to BGP
Flowspec and even the title has been changed in the meantime:

        from
        BGP FlowSpec Extensions for Routing Policy Distribution (RPD) (-00)
        to
        BGP Extensions for Routing Policy Distribution (RPD) (-05)

I recommend using a different working-title for the draft as well (currently
draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd / draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-rpd) to avoid confusion
with other flowspec related work in IDR (ie. draft-ietf-idr-bgp-rpd-00)

Cheers Christoph

--
Christoph Loibl
[email protected] | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nextlayer.at&amp;data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cf87644e2b368483fc73e08d75e03ccf9%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637081242736400279&amp;sdata=B3%2FWszat01yiMTQLuulRBqcKrs6izPnWrqxYX0ge%2BG8%3D&amp;reserved=0



> On 14.10.2019, at 21:18, Susan Hares <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd-05.txt

> (10/14 to 10/28/2019).  You can access the draft at:
>
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-li-idr-flowspec-rpd%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cf87644e2b368483fc73e08d75e03ccf9%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637081242736400279&amp;sdata=oN2YF8xB0VNV%2BYkbqEcZVURE3M4RFDTn5pIwRIfnU3Y%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
> In your discussion regarding this draft consider if:
>
> 1)      Passing extended policy in BGP  is useful,
> 2)      Passing policy in wide community atom is a technical sound
mechanism,
> 3)      A deployment need exists for this technology.
>
>
> Susan Hares
> Co-chair and shepherd
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fidr&amp;data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cf87644e2b368483fc73e08d75e03ccf9%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637081242736400279&amp;sdata=7UJGGV31hhkTUieQuXjy0gFd3yyOJ9SuWyuT4ued8Ag%3D&amp;reserved=0


_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email protected]
https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fidr&amp;data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cf87644e2b368483fc73e08d75e03ccf9%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637081242736400279&amp;sdata=7UJGGV31hhkTUieQuXjy0gFd3yyOJ9SuWyuT4ued8Ag%3D&amp;reserved=0

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr