Re: [GROW] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-08: (with COMMENT)

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 at 19:06, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Job Snijders <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 10:50:01AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > COMMENT:
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > I am having a little trouble reading Appendix A.
>> >
>> > If I understand correctly, the idea is:
>> >
>> > - In version N, you have a behavior X
>> > - In version N+1, you introduce a setting S with default value S=X
>> > - In version N+2 you change the default to S=!X
>> >
>> > However, the text says that "installations upgraded from release N+1
>> > will adhere to the previous insecure behavior"
>> >
>> > Do you need to say that in N+1, you save the value S=X so that in N+1,
>> > it continues to apply?
>>
>> If in N+1 you save S=X, then in N+2, if S is defined as X, behaviour X
>> will apply.
>
>
> Well, yes.
>
>
>
>> If S is not defined, or defined otherwise (like with a fresh
>> install, not an upgrade), you will have !X behaviour.
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> My question is whether in the N+1/N+2 paradigm you are proposing that in
> N+1 you save S=X.
>


Yes.

Do you have a proposed sentence that should be added if this isn't clear?

Kind regards,

Job