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

I agree with the understanding (in fact one might say this is implied
already by this being for Private Use).  A question for you or Randy..
does this make RFC 2119 a normative or informative reference given this
is not a standards track document?  If Normative, should I include the
prescribed "Specification of Requirements" section text as well?   

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 05:55:39PM -0500, Susan Hares wrote:
> Jon:
> 
> My understanding of your text is that it operationally MUST be done.   I
> like you, will  leave the "how to" to implementations and operators.   If
> it's a filters or pure fairy-magic, it is fine by me.  I do not think this
> MUST modification implies the method. 
> 
> My understanding from my wonderful Routing ADs is something that modifies a
> BCP (RFC1930) is generally a BCP.  However, we'll let Stewart Bryant (our
> Routing AD) weigh in on that fact. 
> 
> Sue 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Mitchell [mailto:jrmitche@puck.nether.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 5:38 PM
> To: Susan Hares
> Cc: 'Randy Bush'; 'Nick Hilliard'; idr@ietf.org; stbryant@cisco.com
> Subject: Re: [Idr] WGLC on draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> As for BCP versus info, I leave that up to the chairs, but this does not
> obsolete or otherwise change text in RFC 1930 outside of the IANA
> considerations section (RFC 1930 is primarily about justification for an
> ASN).  There is no "practice" being advocated by the draft to be best or
> current, outside of the practice of not sending Private Use ASNs to the
> Internet.
> 
> Jon
> 
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 04:56:27PM -0500, Susan Hares wrote:
> > Randy and Nick:
> > 
> > Please note that Randy is correct about the use of MUST language, and 
> > it is an appropriate editorial question for WG LC or the period 
> > between WG LC and IETF LC ending.
> > 
> > For my clarification, why is the following text using "must" without 
> > the MUST language?
> > 
> >    If Private Use ASNs are used and prefixes are originated from these
> >    ASNs which are destined to the Internet, Private Use ASNs must be
> >    removed from the AS_PATH before being advertised to the global
> >    Internet.
> > 
> > In my reading of this text, it is specifying the 2119 language.  In 
> > this case the text would be:
> > 
> >    If Private Use ASNs are used and prefixes are originated from these
> >    ASNs which are destined to the Internet, Private Use ASNs MUST be
> >    removed from the AS_PATH before being advertised to the global
> >    Internet.
> > 
> > I look forward to the authors comment on this point.  Since this 
> > document is modifying a BCP (RFC1930), it is likely to be a BCP.  Please
> note I consider
> > this an issue that the authors need to address this RFC2119 issue.
> Please
> > note this type of editorial review is normal during the post WG-LC  
> > when the chairs perform an editing review prior writing up a IESG
> Shepherding report.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I am not widening our restricted request for advice on the WG LC
> agreement.
> > We are still focus this week on the range.   
> > 
> > May you have Shalom in your Holidays,
> > 
> > Sue
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> > Randy Bush
> > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 12:04 PM
> > To: Nick Hilliard
> > Cc: idr@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Idr] WGLC on draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00
> > 
> > > I don't think the IETF is too hot on the idea of "MUST" appearing in 
> > > non normative documents?
> > 
> > normative is how a document is referred to by another document, and 
> > one can never know that.
> > 
> > and, despite common rumor, one can have 2119 language in an info or bcp.
> > 
> > rand
> > _______________________________________________
> > Idr mailing list
> > Idr@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr