Re: [Idr] draft-decraene-idr-reserved-extended-communities-00

Hi John,

Before we start the discussion on this one should we first not conclude 
what is the WG consensus reg draft-decraene-idr-rfc4360-clarification-00 
document ?

Main purpose for draft-decraene-idr-reserved-extended-communities-00 is 
that standard communities where GSHUT is already registered by IANA 
(0xFFFF0000) do not have a way to limit propagation across AS boundaries.

Therefor I think to proceed formally further WG should agree or disagree 
on the former draft defining how implementations should handle AS 
transitiveness of extended communities.

Many thx,
R.

> Folks,
>
> There was a certain lack of clarity during the discussion of
> draft-decraene-idr-reserved-extended-communities-00 at the wg meeting
> -- we got sidetracked into a tangential discussion of
> draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut-02 instead.  So instead of simply asking
> about wg adoption of the draft, I would like to remind people of the
> request the draft makes, and then ask.
>
> Simply put, the draft asks for the following:
>
> - to allocate a code point from the registry "BGP Extended
> Communities Type - extended, transitive" - to allocate a code point
> from the registry "BGP Extended Communities Type - extended,
> non-transitive" - to establish a pair of registries for values to be
> carried in the data portion of extended communities using
> respectively, either of those two code points.
>
> This seems to Sue and me to be a modest and reasonable request to the
> WG. The debate in our limited Q&A time revolved around the related
> gshut draft. Much as with other recent drafts, we think the
> conversation should be divided into two pieces:
>
> - mechanics, in this case extended community allocation and registry
> establishment. That is what the draft and this message relate to. -
> details of related applications. There seems to be a healthy
> conversation already taking place related to gshut, within GROW and
> in hallway conversations.
>
> The proposal on the table is that the extended community type codes
> be allocated and the requested registry established. If folks have
> objections to those specific work items please send them to the list.
> If adopted, we're basically done by the way -- there is really no
> further work for the WG, just a little for the chairs.
>
> In closing I will point out that although
> draft-decraene-idr-reserved-extended-communities-00 makes its request
> from the Standards Action portion of the two registries, it need not
> -- the authors could have requested an FCFS code point instead in
> which case this discussion would have been moot.  They could still do
> this.
>
> Please send any objections to allocating the type codes and
> establishing the registry before November 29. If you do object,
> please provide justification for your position.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --John and Sue _______________________________________________ Idr
> mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>