Hi, Robert: Here is a simple idea: for "bis", make the author list accumulative *when* there is a need for a new editor?
Thanks. -- Enke On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 3:27 PM Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Enke, > > I hope this is and was the case here. > > But my point goes a bit further ... what if they do not want to reply to > all of the administrative emails IETF process requires to push any doc > further ? > > And what if they moved to a different universe ? Should they be forgotten > just because we are doing a few sentences -bis on their work ? > > Thx, > R. > > > On Sat, Aug 23, 2025 at 12:18 AM Enke Chen <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> As I recall, the original authors would be given an opportunity for the >> "bis" in the past. Has there been a change to the practice? >> >> Thanks. -- Enke >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 12:41 PM Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Jeff and WGs, >>> >>> #1 >>> >>> Could you kindly elaborate how changing the definition of T bit in -bis >>> draft does address this scope: >>> >>> - Address the origination and reception of non-transitive routes across >>> eBGP boundaries. >>> >>> With that please kindly clarify up front what T bit of extended >>> community has to do with routes ? Then please explain what is the issue >>> with current definition of T bit in RFC4360 in respect to >>> draft-ietf-bess-ebgp-dmz while in the same time it does not collide in any >>> way or form with draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth (which is proceeding fine >>> forward). >>> >>> #2 >>> >>> I am completely not comfortable to adopt this document. To me RFC4360 >>> was always very clearly written and in fact flexibility of having opaque >>> transitiveness across ASNs was a good feature not a bug. >>> >>> #3 >>> >>> I am against wiping out original authors of RFC4360 with just a few >>> lines of pretty much at best cosmetic changes ... replacing them with a >>> single name - even if such practice complies with IETF process (not sure if >>> -bis is even needed here). >>> >>> Network Working Group S. Sangli >>> Request for Comments: 4360 D. Tappan >>> Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems >>> Y. Rekhter >>> Juniper Networks >>> February 2006 >>> >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Robert >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 9:23 PM Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> IDR, BESS, >>>> >>>> During the work driven by draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth, the issue of >>>> originating non-transitive was brought up and partially discussed in the >>>> use case work for draft-ietf-bess-ebgp-dmz. As discussed during IDR >>>> sessions at IETFs 122 and 123, the preferred solution for addressing the >>>> ambiguities in non-transitivity was to do a small -bis for RFC 4360. Nat >>>> Kao has kindly agreed to be our editor to move this process along. This >>>> document, and issues vs. it, will be managed in the IDR github.[1] >>>> >>>> Since this is IDR chair commissioned work to address this gap, it's our >>>> intention to adopt this work. However, the chairs would like to provide a >>>> review period to OBJECT to adoption. That said, if you'd like to offer >>>> support for the work, or other technical comments, please do so in this >>>> thread! >>>> >>>> This adoption check ends on 5 September. Please note this overlaps the >>>> US Labor Day holiday and consider that in the timing of your request, in >>>> case that's relevant. >>>> >>>> The scope of the commissioned work is: >>>> >>>> - Address open errata vs. RFC 4360 >>>> - Address the origination and reception of non-transitive routes across >>>> eBGP boundaries. >>>> >>>> The current text of the draft currently addresses these items. >>>> >>>> As part of reviewing this problem, the IETF archives show that there >>>> was prior work covering this issue in >>>> draft-decraene-idr-rfc4360-clarification-00 [2]. We've made sure to >>>> acknowledge those prior efforts in the -bis and would request review from >>>> those authors on this -bis. >>>> >>>> -- Jeff (for the IDR Chairs) >>>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-rfc4360-bis >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_ietf-2Dwg-2Didr_draft-2Dietf-2Didr-2Drfc4360-2Dbis&d=DwMFaQ&c=V9IgWpI5PvzTw83UyHGVSoW3Uc1MFWe5J8PTfkrzVSo&r=OPLTTSu-451-QhDoSINhI2xYdwiMmfF5A2l8luvN11E&m=V7Z_nufM6htxuC6g9hcYAkkpVQS-JyGNHK6Wm1Nuduy7mZoMhsd9pH2Tl1JJ59w8&s=aA4LvJqHxTQVHX4BuMxr4ylT-OVoeP--MNCtTiw1BEg&e=> >>>> [2] Bruno and company are to be commended for pressing this issue for >>>> several years. While prior IDR mail threads seem to suggest "this works >>>> fine was the answer", the fact that we had non-transitive behaviors as a >>>> point of contention in the BESS LBW work means it's past time to enshrine >>>> fixing the original criticisms in an RFC update. >>>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>> *From: *[email protected] >>>> *Subject: **I-D Action: draft-chairs-idr-rfc4360-bis-00.txt* >>>> *Date: *August 22, 2025 at 2:46:40 PM EDT >>>> *To: *<[email protected]> >>>> *Reply-To: *[email protected] >>>> >>>> Internet-Draft draft-chairs-idr-rfc4360-bis-00.txt is now available. >>>> >>>> Title: BGP Extended Communities Attribute >>>> Author: Nat Kao >>>> Name: draft-chairs-idr-rfc4360-bis-00.txt >>>> Pages: 13 >>>> Dates: 2025-08-22 >>>> >>>> Abstract: >>>> >>>> This document describes the "extended community" BGP-4 attribute. >>>> This attribute provides a mechanism for labeling information carried >>>> in BGP-4. These labels can be used to control the distribution of >>>> this information, or for other applications. >>>> >>>> This document obsoletes [RFC4360]. >>>> >>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chairs-idr-rfc4360-bis/ >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dchairs-2Didr-2Drfc4360-2Dbis_&d=DwMFaQ&c=V9IgWpI5PvzTw83UyHGVSoW3Uc1MFWe5J8PTfkrzVSo&r=OPLTTSu-451-QhDoSINhI2xYdwiMmfF5A2l8luvN11E&m=V7Z_nufM6htxuC6g9hcYAkkpVQS-JyGNHK6Wm1Nuduy7mZoMhsd9pH2Tl1JJ59w8&s=RsWS4MQQJQBvg31YK91w7KqUwmUR492AyXBTwhY74uw&e=> >>>> >>>> There is also an HTMLized version available at: >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chairs-idr-rfc4360-bis-00 >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_html_draft-2Dchairs-2Didr-2Drfc4360-2Dbis-2D00&d=DwMFaQ&c=V9IgWpI5PvzTw83UyHGVSoW3Uc1MFWe5J8PTfkrzVSo&r=OPLTTSu-451-QhDoSINhI2xYdwiMmfF5A2l8luvN11E&m=V7Z_nufM6htxuC6g9hcYAkkpVQS-JyGNHK6Wm1Nuduy7mZoMhsd9pH2Tl1JJ59w8&s=bB2Do7F9QnSCpCWzWD7pnNgyfI_dNwSGpSCPEpFN6UU&e=> >>>> >>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at: >>>> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> I-D-Announce mailing list -- [email protected] >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> BESS mailing list -- [email protected] >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Idr mailing list -- [email protected] >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>> >>
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
