Note that retaining authors who are no longer participating will, during
auth48, require AD approval.
Yours,
joel
On 8/23/2025 12:58 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Hey Acee,
> So, it is possible to retain authors and contributors without IPR
poll and AUTH48 participation.
Great news ! Thank you for sharing ... Hope IDR WG adopts this
On Sat, Aug 23, 2025 at 6:23 PM Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote:
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]
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
