Hi Nat, What you are referring to was just some working snapshot. The ultimate RFC5575bis was published as new RFC8955
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8955/ with most of the original authors still listed. Those skilled in IETF process can comment if formal Contributors are required to answer all the approval or IPR emails before publication or is there a way to proxy such checks. Thx, R. On Sat, Aug 23, 2025 at 1:09 PM Nat Kao <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, All. > > Should we consider the format that existed in RFC5575-bis? > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hr-idr-rfc5575bis-00#section-13 > > Many Thanks! > Nat > > On Sat, Aug 23, 2025 at 6:46 AM Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yup ! That would be fair. But then current IETF process needs an update >> in respect to all of those emails from authors of anything which get's >> published. >> >> On Sat, Aug 23, 2025 at 12:43 AM Enke Chen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, Robert: >>> >>> Here is a simple idea: for "bis", make the author list accumulative >>> *when* there is a need for a new editor? >>> >>> Thanks. -- Enke >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 3:27 PM Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> 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] >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >> 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]
