Re: [Idr] IETF LC for IDR-ish document <draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05.txt> (Default EBGP Route Propagation Behavior Without Policies) to Proposed Standard

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Tue, 25 April 2017 21:36 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BE79128BB6 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qaaZX5opnZp2 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9889129443 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:36:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 37F0A1E358; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 17:43:45 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 17:43:45 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>
Cc: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>, idr@ietf.org, Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>
Message-ID: <20170425214344.GR30063@pfrc.org>
References: <D4E812E8-AA7B-4EA2-A0AC-034AA8922306@juniper.net> <76d50f1f-e009-ab24-9c66-abdd41791dc1@juniper.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <76d50f1f-e009-ab24-9c66-abdd41791dc1@juniper.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/EHcVCaUUgpjY4g9jx9ndDAimSWg>
Subject: Re: [Idr] IETF LC for IDR-ish document <draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05.txt> (Default EBGP Route Propagation Behavior Without Policies) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 21:36:28 -0000

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:54:29AM -0400, Eric C Rosen wrote:
> FWIW, my take on it is the following.
> 
> The document should not be considered to be an update to 4271, as it
> does not change anything 4271 says, and does not update or extend
> the protocol in any way.  Standards track seems entirely
> inappropriate, as there is no protocol specification in it.
> 
> The document is not really a Best Current Practices document, as it
> advocates a change from current practice.

FWIW, BCP is probably the best targeted status for the document.  I agree
with you completely that this doesn't document deployed code behavior, but
it is the "best practice" for running a network.

At the end of the day, the document status only impacts conformance suites.
And even those depend on the user saying "test these features".

-- Jeff