Subject: [Idr] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-20: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 23:52:47 -0800

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-20: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

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

Nice work on this.

The shepherd writeup says this document creates a new Expert Review registry
and suggests some experts, but the document doesn't actually create any
registry as far as I can tell.  Is there something missing in the document, or
is the shepherd writeup in error?

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 04:06:52 -0800

On January 20, 2022 at 2:52:47 AM, Murray Kucherawy wrote:

Murray:

Hi!  Thanks for the review!

...
> registry as far as I can tell. Is there something missing in the document,
> or is the shepherd writeup in error?

There was originally a range in the registry intended to be assigned
through Expert Review, but it was later changed to a single range
using IETF Review.  That part of the shepherd writeup is outdated. :-(

Alvaro.

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 12:24:31 -0500

Murray: 

I apologize I did not send this last week, but just to close the loop.  The
registry is the IANA registry for the BGP Role.  See section 6.   I should
have made this clearly in the shepherd's report. 

Text from version -21.txt  

   Future assignments may be made by the "IETF Review" policy as defined

   in [RFC8126].  The registry is as shown in Table 3.

        +-------+--------------------------------+---------------+

        | Value | Role name (for the local AS)   |   Reference   |

        +-------+--------------------------------+---------------+

        |   0   | Provider                       | This document |

        |   1   | RS                             | This document |

        |   2   | RS-Client                      | This document |

        |   3   | Customer                       | This document |

        |   4   | Peer (i.e., Lateral Peer)      | This document |

        | 5-255 | To be assigned by IETF Review  |

        +-------+--------------------------------+---------------+

                    Table 3: IANA Registry for BGP Role

Susan Hares 

-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Murray Kucherawy via
Datatracker
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 2:53 AM
To: The IESG
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Susan
Hares; [email-masked]
Subject: [Idr] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-20: (with COMMENT)

 

 

 

COMMENT:

Nice work on this.

or

 

_______________________________________________

Idr mailing list

[email-masked]

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr