Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage-06

2017-04-18 Thread heasley
Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 06:41:15AM -0700, Stewart Bryant: > 5. Security Considerations > >Operators should note the recommendations in Section 11 of BGP >Operations and Security [RFC7454]. > > SB> You do not address the question of whether there are new > considerations, or considerations >

Re: [Gen-art] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06

2018-04-15 Thread heasley
Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 02:52:43PM +, li zhenqiang: > Why do you think this is unusual and not common? Possibly, with due respect, because he is not an operator? While ASes often do so internally, not all reveal it externally or not ubiquitously. Browse https://onestep.net/communities/ to find

Re: [Gen-art] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06

2018-04-16 Thread heasley
Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 12:32:49PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern: > (the authors would not have written it if no one wanted it.) eh, that might not be a valid argument :) > Also, one of the arguments for doing this in the router is that you can > get more timely and precise correlation. Except that for g

Re: [Gen-art] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06

2018-04-17 Thread heasley
Why is there IPR on this draft? Is this because of section 3? A section that is unnecessary and could be entirely removed without affecting the draft in any manner? Otherwise, I think it absolutely absurd that there is IPR on this document. ___ Gen-ar