Re: [Idr] WGLC on draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00

[Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>]

On 20/12/2012 22:38, Jon Mitchell wrote:
> I'm comfortable making the change to a capital MUST for this sentence
> and adding the appropriate reference to RFC 2119 as necessary.  I'm just
> not comfortable telling operators how to perform that action as there
> are a number of options to do so, which was my point to David (and he
> seemed to be ok with).  I will make the changes as necessary to the
> abstract where this statement exists as well.

If it's of interest, rfc 6666 ran into much the same issue recently with
the issue of leaking the rtbh prefix to ebgp peers.  We decided on SHOULD
rather than MUST because there probably were situations where there might
be valid operational reasons for leaking the prefix to a peer. I would
think the same arguments hold for a private ASN range.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6666#section-5

Nick