Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification-13

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

On Apr 3, 2018, at 5:02 PM, John G. Scudder <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Then you also say: “...if the Graceful Notification ("N") bit is not set in the newly received Graceful Restart Capability, no new actions are triggered on the Receiving Speaker -- in particular, a clear "N” bit does not trigger deletion of stale routes.”  If I understand rfc4724 correctly, stale routes could be deleted — the text indicates changes in the behavior even if the N bit is not set, right?  If you are Updating this section of rfc4724, what would make it crystal clear is an “OLD/NEW” notation of the text (as in, this is the OLD text…and this is the NEW text…).
> 
> Oh ouch, I see why you were confused. I believe we meant F bit, not N bit. I'll propose a replacement in OLD/NEW style.

Upon further consideration, I think the text was correct -- but confusing -- as written. I'll work on clarifying but won't change N to F. I believe the intent was to say "If the new session doesn't advertise the N bit, implementors shouldn't assume any special semantics other than 'gr-notification is no longer in effect'." One might argue this was an attempt to say "don't write bugs", so one solution would be to completely remove the offending paragraph if it can't be clarified acceptably.

--John