time passed and... some good discussion and document progress (outside the wg adoption I suppose?) probably time to send a renamed document and accept it as a WG item, eh?
-chris co-chair On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 3:28 AM Stavros Konstantaras <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hoi Martin, > > > > Thank you again for the help, I will fix the small grammar mistake. > > > > If there are no further objections and the community agrees to adopt > draft-spaghetti-grow-bcp-ext-comms, I will contact asap the authors of > RFC7948 and work with them to update section 4.6.1 accordingly. > > I believe is quite useful to do that as well. > > > > > > Kind Regards > > Stavros > > > > From: Martin Pels <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, 19 April 2024 at 15:12 > To: Stavros Konstantaras <[email protected]>, Jeff Haas > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [GROW] WGADOPTION - draft-spaghetti-grow-bcp-ext-comms - ENDS > 04/08/2024 - Apr 8th 2024 > > Hi Stavros, > > On 18/04/2024 11:32, Stavros Konstantaras wrote: > > Hi Martin, Jeff and colleagues. > > > > After some internal discussion, we have submitted the -02 version of the > > draft, you can find it available here: > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-spaghetti-grow-bcp-ext-comms&data=05%7C02%7Cstavros.konstantaras%40ams-ix.net%7C3233e1941fae4f7c2a5e08dc60726476%7C09d28fc155624961a4848ce4932094ae%7C0%7C0%7C638491291652345296%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8kimceqc%2BbukN0oO2rxLSL1bADZeqhZX%2B7159jMgYO4%3D&reserved=0 > > <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-spaghetti-grow-bcp-ext-comms&data=05%7C02%7Cstavros.konstantaras%40ams-ix.net%7C3233e1941fae4f7c2a5e08dc60726476%7C09d28fc155624961a4848ce4932094ae%7C0%7C0%7C638491291652360248%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dMDaT6GyiJPpEWuO2p7AikydeHkhdONvakJlcg%2F8CUk%3D&reserved=0> > > > > In short we adopted your recommedations and we do believe that IXP Route > > Servers should not scrub completely the BGP Extendend communities as > > this might be a useful feature for few peers signaling each-other. > > I found one grammar nit: > > "Allow the rest of the BGP Extended Communities transit > transparently through the Route Servers." > > should be > > "Allow the rest of the BGP Extended Communities to transit > transparently through the Route Servers." > > > However, we do believe that BGP Extendend communities related to L3VPNs > > (route targets) should not be leaked to the Route Servers and they don’t > > have valid place in Multilateral Peering. This is depicted in section ** > > > > 4. > > > > Please have a reading and let us know what do you believe after these > > modifications. > > Looks acceptable to me. > > What are your thoughts on having the document update RFC7948, section 4.6.1? > > Kind regards, > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
