Re: [bess] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-09: (with DISCUSS)

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks,

I'll turn the handle.

A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of David Smith (djsmith)
> Sent: 05 February 2015 18:00
> To: [e-mail]; Benoit Claise (bclaise); 'The IESG'
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; bess-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-09:
> (with DISCUSS)
> 
> 
> Adrian>If we had "ACCEPT_OWN handling SHOULD be controlled by
> configuration, and if controlled by configuration it MUST default to being
> disabled"...
> 
> I agree this may be most optimal.
> 
> /dave
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 8:24 AM
> To: Benoit Claise (bclaise); 'The IESG'
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-09:
> (with DISCUSS)
> 
> Bit disappointed that this is a Discuss.
> 
> But let's discuss it.
> 
> > Ron's point, part of the OPS-DIR review, look valid to me. Can we
> > please discuss it.
> >
> > This document is well written and well thought out. It is almost ready
> > for publication with one small issue.
> >
> > In Section 2.3, the authors say, " ACCEPT_OWN handling SHOULD be
> > controlled by configuration, and SHOULD   default to being disabled. IMO,
> > they should say, "ACCEPT_OWN handling MUST be controlled by
> > configuration, and MUST default to being disabled."
> >
> > AFAIKS, you would never want to build a router where ACCEPT_OWN
> > behavior is always on and cannot be disabled by configuration.
> > Likewise, you would never want to build a router where ACCEPT_OWN
> behavior is the default.
> 
> I reject specifications that control what one might want to build. We produce
> specs to define interoperable behavior and to ensure the Internet works. We
> don't legislate for people producing product in niches or that is entirely unsalable.
> 
> However, let's separate the two SHOULDs.
> 
> Suppose one wanted to build an implementation where the feature is not
> controlled by configuration and is always disabled?
> In that case you would be banned from doing so if "ACCEPT_OWN handling MUST
> be controlled by configuration", so I would say that "SHOULD" is correct in the
> first case.
> 
> I suspect the second "SHOULD" is a consequence of a compound sentence.
> If we had "ACCEPT_OWN handling SHOULD be controlled by configuration, and if
> controlled by configuration it MUST default to being disabled" then that might be
> closer to correct according to what Ron is suggesting.
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> 
> PS. Would have helped if the original review had reached the AD, shepherd, and
> WG. Maybe also the IETF list.