Subject: [Idr] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 06:50:26 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for this short and easy to read document.

Non-blocking comment/question: I really wonder what is the use of this document
(message of 0-255 octets) vs. RFC 8203 (message of 0-127 octets) especially
when using the same code points... 128 octets is already a long message in
ASCII (less of course in UTF-8) and there is no way to know whether the
receiving BGP speaker supports this document. I.e., except within a domain,
there is little use of this document. What did I get wrong ?

Regards

-éric

---

From: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 17:26:49 +0000

It was too short in Russian, using UTF-8 to encode Cyrillic.

Regards,
Jakob.

-----Original Message-----
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Friday, October 2, 2020 6:50 AM
To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Susan Hares <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-07: (with COMMENT)

Regards

-éric