[sidr] AD review and progressing draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-02

As usual, I have done an AD review of draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-02 before progressing the draft. a) Language around draft-ietf-idr-as-migration is more tentative than is appropriate when that draft and this are going to be RFCs. Please clean that up. b) In Sec 3.1, it says "If the route now

Re: [sidr] AD review and progressing draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-02

I forgot to not that RFC5398 is an informative reference. The use of the AS numbers for examples doesn't have any effects on the technology to standardize. Please do update that as well. Thanks, Alia On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: > As usual, I have done an AD review of dr

Re: [sidr] AD review and progressing draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-02

Alia – thanks for the review. Consider this ACK for all comments except the ones below, inline with WG] I have a –03 draft in the edit buffer, and will publish once the below is resolved. Thanks, Wes From: Alia Atlas mailto:akat...@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, January 30, 2015 at 3:50 PM To: "d

Re: [sidr] AD review and progressing draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-02

update: I added the following text at the end of section 5.3 to cover Alia's question about iBGP AS migration. Let me know whether this is acceptable: Additionally, section 4 of draft-ietf-idr-as-migration discusses methods in which AS migrations can be completed for iBGP peers such that a sessi

Re: [sidr] AD review and progressing draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-02

I went ahead and pushed a revision that covers Alia's and Keyur's reviews. Thanks, Wes From: , "George, Wes" mailto:wesley.geo...@twcable.com>> Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 3:30 PM To: Alia Atlas mailto:akat...@gmail.com>>, "draft-ietf-sidr-as-migrat...@tools.ietf.org

Re: [sidr] AD review and progressing draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-02

has the wg really looked at 5.2 and 5.3 with respect to how the ibgp hacks affect the bgpsec spec? randy ___ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

Re: [sidr] AD review and progressing draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-02

I posed some questions about this in my WGLC review of bgpsec spec, but haven't heard anything back. Current schedule has this being evaluated by IESG prior to our next meeting. If we need to discuss during the meeting in Dallas, we could certainly delay processing of the document. It has a normati

Re: [sidr] AD review and progressing draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-02

sounds like a good topic for the mic/front/preso in dallas... to me at least. On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 9:34 AM, George, Wes wrote: > I posed some questions about this in my WGLC review of bgpsec spec, but > haven't heard anything back. Current schedule has this being evaluated by > IESG prior to ou

Re: [sidr] AD review and progressing draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-02

Hi Wes, In-line with [Alia] On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:38 PM, George, Wes wrote: > Alia – thanks for the review. Consider this ACK for all comments except > the ones below, inline with WG] > I have a –03 draft in the edit buffer, and will publish once the below is > resolved. > > > Thanks, > >

Re: [sidr] AD review and progressing draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-02

I've passed the draft back to the WG. When the necessary conversation and WGLC has occurred again, I'll be happy to progress it quickly. Thanks, Alia On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > sounds like a good topic for the mic/front/preso in dallas... to me at > least. > >