Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-09

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 16:00:45 +0100

Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
>> We deliberately steered clear of dealing with operational issues in this
>> draft because its focus was on the bgp protocol. Several of the comments
>> you make below are probably more relevant to
>> draft-ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations. We've marked them as such.
> 
> Does that mean that you will update
> draft-ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations, or what?  Just wondering.
> It would be nice to have a reference from this document to
> draft-ietf-grow-ix-bgp-route-server-operations.

We thought about it and the bgp-route-server-operations operations draft
references the bgp-route-server draft, but not the other way around.
This was done because bgp-route-server is standards track and
bgp-route-server-operations is informational.  Also, it stops the
chicken and egg problem.

> I'm starting the IETF Last Call and will schedule the IESG review at the
> next available Telechat.

ok cool, thanks,

Nick

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 18:17:12 +0000

On 6/1/16, 11:00 AM, "Nick Hilliard" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Nick:

Hi!

>bgp-route-server-operations is informational.  Also, it stops the

Those are not problems.  Standards track documents point at Informational
documents all the time, as long as the reference is not Normative, then
it's ok.  In this case, I think it would be beneficial to tell people
reading draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server that there are operational
considerations (as an informational reference) somewhere else.

I'll leave it up to you.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 16:10:04 +0100

> considerations (as an informational reference) somewhere else.

I'll put a link in then, and will update this in AUTH48.  Thanks for the
suggestion - there was conflicting information about circular references.

Nick