Hi Robert, > On Aug 23, 2025, at 10:37 AM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Nat, > > What you are referring to was just some working snapshot. The ultimate > RFC5575bis was published as new RFC8955 > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8955/ with most of the original authors > still listed. > > Those skilled in IETF process can comment if formal Contributors are required > to answer all the approval or IPR emails before publication or is there a way > to proxy such checks.
Unfortunately that is the normal IETF process, but I was able to get around it by verifying that a couple of the authors of the RFC 5340 had truly discontinued IETF participation. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5340/ So, it is possible to retain authors and contributors without IPR poll and AUTH48 participation. . Thanks, Acee > > Thx, > R. > > > > On Sat, Aug 23, 2025 at 1:09 PM Nat Kao <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, All. > > Should we consider the format that existed in RFC5575-bis? > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hr-idr-rfc5575bis-00#section-13 > > Many Thanks! > Nat > > On Sat, Aug 23, 2025 at 6:46 AM Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Yup ! That would be fair. But then current IETF process needs an update in > respect to all of those emails from authors of anything which get's > published. > > On Sat, Aug 23, 2025 at 12:43 AM Enke Chen <[email protected]> > wrote: > 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 > [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/ >> >> There is also an HTMLized version available at: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chairs-idr-rfc4360-bis-00 >> >> 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] > _______________________________________________ > 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] _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
