Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Call for draft-ietf-idr-rpd-14.txt - Single Vendor Implementations (12/12/21 to 12/20/21)

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 16:54:48 -0500

This closes call for concerns regarding 2 implementation from Huawei 

for draft-ietf-idr-rpd-15.txt.  The working group has reached consensus

to accept these 2 implementations from Huawei. 

The call  raised two issues:  

a) Were the implementations separately developed? 

b) How should AS prepend be used as a BGP policy actions? 

On question a), 

The implementers indicated these two implementations were done by two
separate teams.     

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/mb2m9DJrTXbrkz5EnGQhuFkMqdQ/

Nick Hilliard raised the issue of the type of implementations were not
sufficient to exercise this 

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/G4Kqzbwg5yhSTHIgi2MkvmDGa9s/

In the past IDR chairs placed some implementations (e.g. open-source)

as not sufficient for the implementation tests. 

At this point, the IDR chairs do not feel it is productive to try 

to judge the implementations outside the implementation reports.   

The best judge is whether the implementers can 

provide an accurate implementation report. 

The implementers have updated the rpd implementation report at: 

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-rpd%20implementations

The chairs welcome any additional comments on the implementation reports. 

On question b, 

the chairs have raised a question to GROW regarding 

draft-ietf-grow-as-path-prepending to determine

what operational advice should be included in 

draft-ietf-idr-rpd-15.txt. 

Cheers, S