Re: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-scudder-idr-optional-transitive-00

["John G. Scudder" <[e-mail]>]

On Mar 3, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> It's so great to be in sync !
>
> > To reiterate, "silent update drop" isn't the intent of the draft and
> > we'll strive to make this even clearer in the next version.
>
> I would just propose a one sentence to be added to make it cristal  
> clear ...
>
> "If due to an errors, including those propagated in transitive  
> attributes, the other attributes of the update message can not be  
> correctly parsed the entire update is considered invalid and  
> procedures of [RFC4271] continue to apply.

I'll add that or something like it.

> that would clearly contradict with the text below which perhaps  
> needs to be re-edited a bit too.
>
> >> The draft says: "In any case, an error in an optional transitive
> >> attribute whose Partial bit is set MUST NOT be responded to by
> >> sending a NOTIFICATION message or resetting the BGP session."

I think your concern would be addressed by a simple change: s/in/ 
limited to/, so: "In any case, an error limited to an optional  
transitive attribute whose Partial bit is set MUST NOT be responded to  
by sending a NOTIFICATION message or resetting the BGP session."  Agree?

Thanks,

--John