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 >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_ietf-2Dwg-2Didr_draft-2Dietf-2Didr-2Drfc4360-2Dbis&d=DwMFaQ&c=V9IgWpI5PvzTw83UyHGVSoW3Uc1MFWe5J8PTfkrzVSo&r=OPLTTSu-451-QhDoSINhI2xYdwiMmfF5A2l8luvN11E&m=V7Z_nufM6htxuC6g9hcYAkkpVQS-JyGNHK6Wm1Nuduy7mZoMhsd9pH2Tl1JJ59w8&s=aA4LvJqHxTQVHX4BuMxr4ylT-OVoeP--MNCtTiw1BEg&e=> >>> [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/ >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dchairs-2Didr-2Drfc4360-2Dbis_&d=DwMFaQ&c=V9IgWpI5PvzTw83UyHGVSoW3Uc1MFWe5J8PTfkrzVSo&r=OPLTTSu-451-QhDoSINhI2xYdwiMmfF5A2l8luvN11E&m=V7Z_nufM6htxuC6g9hcYAkkpVQS-JyGNHK6Wm1Nuduy7mZoMhsd9pH2Tl1JJ59w8&s=RsWS4MQQJQBvg31YK91w7KqUwmUR492AyXBTwhY74uw&e=> >>> >>> There is also an HTMLized version available at: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chairs-idr-rfc4360-bis-00 >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_html_draft-2Dchairs-2Didr-2Drfc4360-2Dbis-2D00&d=DwMFaQ&c=V9IgWpI5PvzTw83UyHGVSoW3Uc1MFWe5J8PTfkrzVSo&r=OPLTTSu-451-QhDoSINhI2xYdwiMmfF5A2l8luvN11E&m=V7Z_nufM6htxuC6g9hcYAkkpVQS-JyGNHK6Wm1Nuduy7mZoMhsd9pH2Tl1JJ59w8&s=bB2Do7F9QnSCpCWzWD7pnNgyfI_dNwSGpSCPEpFN6UU&e=> >>> >>> 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] >> >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
