+grow, they got lost somewhere on the way... (grow folk interested might want to just go look at the archive: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg16066.html ...which is this thread...
sadly this discussion is spread over at least: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg16102.html https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg16066.html https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg16034.html https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg16009.html ) On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > I am sensing is that if they put -large on the 2016/2017/2018 BGP roadmaps > next time their PMs will take a look at BGP communities topic will be at > best 2025+. I think ops folk understand that given enough thrust (money) vendors will do all manner of things on-demand. I think it's not productive to really talk about this here though, what's helpful is: 1) is -large still interesting? (seems like lots of 'yes pls' already) 2) is there room for improvement? (always, almost anyway) 3) should we try to improve/change -large or move that work to -wide or -tlv or -other ? (seems like today we want -large to progress, and we should gather requirements/options for -wide or -tlv or -other-thing) Can we get some requirements discussions/writng going in grow and once we're not spitballing come back to IDR with a useful set of requirements and uss-cases? -chris
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
