Subject: [Idr] WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-issues

From: John Scudder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:03:28 -0700

Folks,

This is to start a working group last call for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-issues, "Issues in Revising BGP-4 (RFC1771 to RFC4271)".  As a reminder, this was a working document used to track the process of updating the BGP base spec.  We want to publish it as an Informational document for posterity.

Please post any comments by April 13, 2011.  (However in light of the great length of the draft, we will extend the WGLC if anyone requests it.)

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-issues-04.txt

Thanks,

--John

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 18:19:56 +0200

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Scudder" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 3:03 PM
Subject: [Idr] WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-issues

> Folks,
>
> This is to start a working group last call for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-issues,
"Issues in Revising BGP-4 (RFC1771 to RFC4271)".  As a reminder, this was a
working document used to track the process of updating the BGP base spec.  We
want to publish it as an Informational document for posterity.

Weeelll not really.

As the I-D says, it tracks updates from Aug 2002 onwards by which time there had
been many revisions and many issues raised and at least some resolved.  It
should not claim to be a comprehensive record of decisions taken, rather it
should make it clear, in the Abstract, that it only covers those taken in a
limited time span.  A lot of work was done before the first appearance of the
issue list (and I recall no formal discussion of having an issue list, it seemed
as if someone thought it a good idea and did it - sometimes it helped, other
times it hindered).

Also, in perhaps many places it is'wrong' in that what it says is not what is
now in the RFC, just an interim state on the way to the consensus that did
appear in the RFC.  Again, I think this needs calling out more clearly.

Tom Petch

> Please post any comments by April 13, 2011.  (However in light of the great
length of the draft, we will extend the WGLC if anyone requests it.)

---

From: John Scudder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:33:58 -0700

On Mar 30, 2011, at 6:19 PM, t.petch wrote:
> limited time span.  

That seems reasonable.

> A lot of work was done before the first appearance of the

Of course this was well before the beginning of my service as co-chair and I don't recall the details.  I found the list useful but YMMV.  

> appear in the RFC.  Again, I think this needs calling out more clearly.

That also seems reasonable (and much more reasonable than the probably-pointless task of trying to make the document comprehensive).

If you have any specific edits to suggest, that would be helpful.

By the way, do you agree that it's worth having this document around in some form for posterity?

Thanks,

--John

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:38:05 +0200

---- Original Message -----
From: "John Scudder" <[email-masked]>
To: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 8:33 PM

That seems reasonable.

> as if someone thought it a good idea and did it - sometimes it helped, other

Of course this was well before the beginning of my service as co-chair and I
don't recall the details.  I found the list useful but YMMV.

> appear in the RFC.  Again, I think this needs calling out more clearly.

That also seems reasonable (and much more reasonable than the probably-pointless
task of trying to make the document comprehensive).

By the way, do you agree that it's worth having this document around in some
form for posterity?

<tp>
In principle, having a record of why and how a part of a specification was
arrived at is good.  I have seen plenty of requests on various lists for such an
explanation, often answered by those who were around at the time.  The devil is
in the detail, in getting it comprehensive and in getting it accurate, which is
why
I flagged the need to make it clear that this will never be comprehensive.
(Getting this far will have been a lot of work for Andrew and making it
comprehensive
would involve even more, going back over lengthy threads, and I do
not think that that effort could be justified, even if there were an academic
with
post-grads looking for a project:-)

As to getting it right, I did look at it when it first appeared, in 2005, and
put it on the shelf for further study, where it has remained ever since.
Probably I never will go through it all to see if it corresponds with my own
notes,
my own archives from 2002/2003 but I intend to dip into it some of the topics
during
this WGLC; as you know, it is big.

Is it worth having around?  Um, don't know.  I rely on my own archives for that
which I was involved with and so am unlikely to need it.  Others?  It would
be interesting to hear the views of Susan and Benjamin.

The problem I had at the time (and still have) is that issues are fuzzy things,
hard
to nail down, not at all object-oriented (I think that the IETF issue tracker
has the same problem).  In at least one case, probably several, I raised an
issue,
the issue evolved and my original point was lost and so I re-reraised it,
creating a fresh issue (3.13.5).

Tom Petch
</tp>

Thanks,

--John=