Graceful BGP session shutdown
draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut-13

Summary: Has a DISCUSS. Has enough positions to pass once DISCUSS positions are resolved.

Alvaro Retana Discuss

Discuss (2017-12-13 for -12)
Why is this document not in the Standards Track?  I ask because I think that the definition of a well-known community (one which has "global significance and their operations shall be implemented in any community-attribute-aware BGP speaker" [rfc1997], in other words, everywhere!) should result in a Standards Track specification, and not in an Informational document.  I couldn't find any specific justification for the status in the writeups (Shepherd or Ballot), nor a related discussion in the archive.

To resolve this DISCUSS, I would prefer to see a change in the status, but will yield to WG consensus (so a pointer to that discussion would be enough).
Comment (2017-12-13 for -12)
Nit:  It would be very nice if the appendices were referenced in the text.

Ben Campbell (was No Objection) Yes

Comment (2017-12-13 for -12)
I'm balloting "yes" because I think it's important to publish this. But, like Alvaro,  I wonder why this is not standards track, BCP, or just about anything but informational. So I support his DISCUSS, including his the comments on how to resolve it.

-1, last paragraph: This references RFC 8174, but does not use the actual 8174 boilerplate. Is there a reason not to do so?

Warren Kumari Yes

Alia Atlas No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

Benoit Claise No Objection

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Suresh Krishnan No Objection

Mirja K├╝hlewind No Objection

Comment (2017-12-14 for -12)
I also believe this should be standards track. Or is there any good reason why it should not be standards track similar as other docs that define well known communities?

Terry Manderson No Objection

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

Kathleen Moriarty No Objection

Spencer Dawkins No Record

Eric Rescorla No Record

Adam Roach No Record