Re: [Idr] WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-mrai-dep-03

[<[e-mail]>]

> > From your above statement, I understand that the draft only
> > deprecate the 2 default values defined in RFC 4271. Hence the
> > following RFC 4271 text is still applicable: " Since fast
> > convergence is needed within an autonomous system, either (a) the
> > MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer used for internal peers SHOULD
> > be shorter than the MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer used for
> > external peers, or (b) the procedure describe in this section
> > SHOULD NOT apply to routes sent to internal peers."
> 
> It should yes.
> 
> > In that case, IMHO, the draft sentence " The appropriate choice of
> > default values is left to the discretion of implementors." Should be
> > augmented with "but as per RFC 4271 default value should be chosen
lower
> > for iBGP peer than for eBGP peer".
> 
> The draft as it is tries very hard to not prescribe anything except
> to remove the default values.

My reading of the draft (which can be wrong) is that the above sentence
allows each implementation to chose any default value and hence override
RFC 4271 recommendation to have a lower value for iBGP MRAI than for
eBGP MRAI.

As an alternative, what about removing the second sentence? ("The
appropriate choice of default values is left to the discretion of
implementors.") IMO the first sentence is clear enough (   "The
suggested default values for the MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer
given in [RFC4271] are deprecated")

> Going beyond that likely only leads to an argument. ;)

My point was that the second sentence already goes a bit beyond. But
really no big deal. It's up to you.