Adding route server support #31
Conversation
| * location (Peering Location, as defined above) | ||
| * status (Session Status, as defined above) | ||
| * session_id (of individual session and generated by the server) | ||
|
|
||
| As not all elements are reflected in the {{autopeer}} OpenAPI definition to date, we define the missing fields here to be reflected in {{autopeer}} in the future. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks good.
As an aside, we should probably update the OpenAPI spec and move it in to the IETF draft as well (also brought up in #30), but that's outside the scope of this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As an aside, we should probably update the OpenAPI spec and move it in to the IETF draft as well (also brought up in #30), but that's outside the scope of this PR.
I think that’s a very reasonable approach. RFCs should be self-contained. I’m happy to help with editing tasks like this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks! We'd welcome the help.
| IANA Considerations {#iana} | ||
| =================== | ||
|
|
||
| This document has no IANA actions. | ||
|
|
||
| --- back | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Want to add yourself as well?
Fine for me, thank you. |
Hi all,
after some discussion with Jenny and Arturo, I have prepared this PR to add necessary fields for route server support at IXPs to the draft. I am happy to work on any feedback.
I was a bit unsure where to add the explanation of new fields, that are not yet reflected in the autopeer OpenAPI definition. For the time being I placed them in the BGP Session section, but they might fit better somewhere else. To be discussed.
Regards,
Matthias