Hi all,
Thank you all for the feedback on the draft! After some discussion, we have
published a new version of the draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ramseyer-grow-peering-api/04/.
I, along with some of my collaborators (cc’d), will be at the IETF 119 meeting
in Brisbane this
On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 12:24:27AM +, Job Snijders wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 08:19:42PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> > > Moreover, we know at least another IXP that dropped support for
> > Extended Communities 2 years ago with big success, thus adopting
> > such a practice from other
On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 11:54:10PM +, Job Snijders wrote:
> I posted a small revision to clarify the scope of the document
>
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-spaghetti-grow-bcp-ext-comms-00=draft-spaghetti-grow-bcp-ext-comms-01=--html
Thanks for the clarifications. I think
On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 08:19:42PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> > Moreover, we know at least another IXP that dropped support for
> Extended Communities 2 years ago with big success, thus adopting
> such a practice from other fellow IXPs shouldn’t be of
> an issue as long as support for Large
Stavros,
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 09:28:19AM +, Stavros Konstantaras wrote:
> Thank you very much for your comment. As Job said, the draft is targeting the
> Route Server infrastructure of Internet Exchange Points, but do you believe
> that this is something that needs further clarification
Dear all,
Thank you all for the feedback so far!
I posted a small revision to clarify the scope of the document
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-spaghetti-grow-bcp-ext-comms-00=draft-spaghetti-grow-bcp-ext-comms-01=--html
Kind regards,
Job
co-author / not in chair capacity
On
