Subject: [Idr] Joel Jaeggli's Yes on draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-30-31-129-02: (with COMMENT)

From: "Joel Jaeggli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2017 18:50:34 -0800

Joel Jaeggli has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-30-31-129-02: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-30-31-129/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Stop them before they kill again.

Imho, while we're not doing it here, we should probably provide advice to
implementers or even revisit how we allocate them on how to do this
safely in the future cause squatting on code points is  definite
minefield here.

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 15:48:14 +0000

Joel:

Hi!

Yes, there’s been plenty of discussion in the WG…one of the proposals is define experimental path attributes; pointing at this just because it was discussed in Korea: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-haas-idr-extended-experimental-00

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On 1/1/17, 9:50 PM, "Joel Jaeggli" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote: