Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt (10/17/2016 to 10/31/2016)

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 13:14:43 -0400

Hi Everybody,

The working group last call has ended. We have good, although not unanimous, consensus that the draft is ready to advance. Accordingly, we will prepare a shepherd report and forwarded to the IESG.

The area where consensus was rough (although still clear) was around the question of the Global Administrator field. There were concerns that "SHOULD be an Autonomous System Number" was either too prescriptive, or not prescriptive enough, and that it should be either a MUST or a MAY. Various proposals were advanced to resolve this concern, and some of the text around Global Administrator was improved, however not all disagreements have been reconciled. We will do our best to make sure the shepherd report reflects these concerns.

Thanks to the authors and the working group for your efforts so far and in the future as we go through IETF last call and IESG review.

--John

> On Oct 17, 2016, at 4:27 PM, Susan Hares <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> This begins a 2 week WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt.  (10/17 to 10/31).   Please comment if draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt  is ready for publication.   
>  
> If you have concerns with the text,  please be very specific about what is wrong and what needs to change.  If you have concerns about operational aspects, please give a complete description of the problem and why this draft does not solve it. 
>  
> This WG LC is not a place to debate whether we should have adopted this technology.  
>  
> The focus of WG LC is whether this technology has implementations (see IDR wiki for examples),  and whether these implementation inter-operate.  It is also important to consider deployment issue or problems on currently.  
>  
> Sue Hares and John Scudder