Re: [Idr] WG adoption for draft-kumari-deprecate-as-set-confed-set

I support adoption of this draft.

Cheers,
Melchior

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:34 PM Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:

> Greetings:
>
>
>
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for
> draft-kumari-deprecate-as-set-confed-set
>
> from 8/16 to 8/30/2019.
>
>
>
> This draft seeks to remove AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET from RFC4271.
>
> Draft is at:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kumari-deprecate-as-set-confed-set-14
>
>
>
>
>
> To quote the draft:
>
>
>
>    “BCP 172 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp172> [RFC6472 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6472>] makes a recommendation for not using AS_SET and
>
>    AS_CONFED_SET in Border Gateway Protocol (BGP).  This document
>
>    advances the recommendation to a standards requirement in BGP”
>
>         [aka RFC4271].
>
>
>
>    “From analysis of past Internet routing data, it is apparent that
>
>    aggregation that involves AS_SETs is very seldom used in practice on
>
>    the public Internet [Analysis <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kumari-deprecate-as-set-confed-set-14#ref-Analysis>] and when it is used, it is often used
>
>    incorrectly -- reserved AS numbers ([RFC1930 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1930>]) and/or only a single
>
>    AS in the AS_SET are by far the most common cases.”
>
>
>
>
>
> In your comments on adoption, consider:
>
>
>
> 1)  Should the IDR WG remove AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET from BGP?
>
> 2)  Is this document a reasonable document to document that removal?
>
> 3)  Are there technical flaws in the arguments for removal?
>
> 4)  Are there issues with the text?
>
>
>
> Cheerily, Susan Hares
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>

Re: [Idr] WG adoption for draft-kumari-deprecate-as-set-confed-set - 8/16 to 8/30/2019