Subject: [Idr] Requesting WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-05

From: John Scudder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 13:08:07 -0400

(as a co-author)

Hi All,

With the revision just published, the authors feel draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-05 is ready for working group last call.

Thanks,

--John

P.S.: From the changelog in Appendix A:

   idr-04 to idr-05:  Added reference to "BGP Bestpath Selection
     Criteria Enhancement" draft.  Rename "next hop" field of NLRI to
     "Indirect Peer's Address".  Add suggestion about AS_PATH length
     checks.

---

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 17:36:02 +0000

Dear John, working group,

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 01:08:07PM -0400, John Scudder wrote:
> With the revision just published, the authors feel
> draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-05 is ready for working group last call.

Before proceeding to WGLC, I'd personally love to see implementation
reports: the draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd implementations link at
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/Protocol%20implementations%20Reports
points to a rather empty page.

Perhaps the authors could also consider adding a BCP 205 section to the
draft to raise awareness of running code.

Kind regards,

Job

ps. yes, i know IDR can have WGLC without running code, but given that
this is a non-trivial extension to BGP; I'd really like to see multiple
implementations that are able to interact with each other in the correct
way and a report detailing the interopability.

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 18:43:31 -0400

John: 

I'll start the WG LC later this evening. 

Cheerily, 

Susan Hares 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Scudder [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 1:08 PM
To: idr@ietf. org
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Requesting WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-05

(as a co-author)

Hi All,

With the revision just published, the authors feel draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-05
is ready for working group last call.

Thanks,

--John