Job,
> On May 22, 2019, at 1:44 PM, Job Snijders <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear all, > > Part of the IETF process is to ensure all concerns have been addressed > (and hopefully resolved). A concern was raised about "best vs active". > My takeaway from the conversation at IETF 104's GROW session is that > there is significant interest to progress towards publication - and > both Jeff Haas and John Scudder seemed to indicate to have ideas for > text on how to resolve issues they saw. > > Version -03 didn't receive any feedback on the WG, so it is not clear > to me whether we have converged on consensus or not. > > A -02/-03 diff be found here > https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-03.txt > > I'd like to ask that folks with skin in the game take a look and share > with the working group whether we are good to go, or follow up with > proposals for changes to the draft, or at least affirm outstanding > issues still remain. The outstanding issues remain. Minimally, the work I have promised (and am delinquent on) is to send diffs to help the draft be more clear in a RFC-4271 sense as to what is being sent. This at least removes the ambiguity of the current text. With regard to actual resolution of active vs. "bgp best", I suspect that we'll end up with the draft covering one thing and implementations perhaps choosing which of the two options to send. Noting this in a TLV for the peer-up message would be one possible way to encode this. I intend to spend some time resolving open IETF work next week after the U.S. Memorial Day holiday. -- Jeff P.S. I don't know that I've made this point before, but a flavor of this conversation had happened during standardization of the BGP MIB. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
