Hi All, One comment about the intended status of this document. As pointed out by Jeff, when I looked at v07 the contents looked informational (and the document was identified as such). However, there have been significant updates in v08 to address the overlap and comments raised. The status was also changed to standards track. I remember this being presented during both the IDR and BESS sessions at IETF 124.
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-bess-ebgp-dmz-07&url2=draft-ietf-bess-ebgp-dmz-08&difftype=--html In view of this, please disregard my previous suggestion on the document track and I would like the WG to evaluate afresh based on the current contents. Thanks, Ketan On Sat, Feb 14, 2026 at 5:09 AM Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-ebgp-dmz/shepherdwriteup/ > > In November 2025, the IDR chairs corresponded with the BESS chairs about > the disposition of the DMZ draft. As you know from the long history of > this draft, the link-bandwidth one, and the work that came to be part of > RFC 4360-bis, we've discussed leaving the DMZ draft in BESS and running > concurrent WGLC's on this draft along with RFC 4360-bis. > > As part of this concurrent WGLC, I've completed an initial shepherd > report for the DMZ draft. Please review its contents for correctness. > A few items have been identified that will be needing to be addressed > prior to starting the last call. They are: > > - Author count > 5. I've not recommended changes since I've not been a > participant in those discussions. The chairs have been urged to discuss > what to do about it. > > - Proposed status. Ketan, as part of the link-bandwidth draft AD > review, suggested that the DMZ draft should likely be informational. > > - IPR declarations were partially gathered during document adoption. > While I have not been deeply thorough in my review of the IETF > mailarchive for search terms covering this draft, my cursory review > suggests we're missing IPR declarations for some of the authors. If > you're one of the authors identified in the shepherd writeup, please > either make an appropriate declaration or perhaps provide a pointer in > the archive for a prior one. > > - The authors have left a NOTE in the draft suggesting a bit of doubt > about the disposition of one of the points regarding zero > link-bandwidth. Discussion about this was part of our last minute > link-bandwidth document changes in IDR - so this isn't surprising. The > authors are requested to please address this lingering point in the draft. > > - While there are no normative procedures specified in the draft, the > procedures do raise questions about supporting implementations. I won't > speak for the chairs in terms of expectations of formal implementation > reports for their working group. If such an implementation report > exists for one of your implementations, please disclose it so it can be > added to the report. > > - The document may benefit from a routing-directorate review. I was > unable to identify a prior review for this document from the mail archives. > > In general, the document is in good shape. > > I'll be working on a similar shepherd report for RFC 4360-bis in IDR. > IDR does have a requirement for at least two implementations in order to > progress the document. Since part of the motivation for RFC 4360-bis > was addressing the transitivity considerations needed for this document, > I find it highly likely that there are implementations from authors > participating in the DMZ draft for the RFC 4360-bis work. Please > contribute to IDR's implementation report so that we can send both > documents to the IESG at the same time when they've completed their > reviews. > > -- Jeff (as document shepherd) > > _______________________________________________ > BESS 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]
