Re: [Idr] draft-decraene-idr-reserved-extended-communities-00

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bruno,

Nope I am not proposing to stop any work which would include allocating 
a code point to non transitive extended communities.

But I do think that in the event of any clarity required for g-shut it 
could be a good opportunity to make that happen now while we are at it.

Or perhaps we are all clear now and no further clarification is needed ?
If so then we don't need to worry about this.

Cheers,
R.

> Robert,
>
>> Before we start the discussion on this one should we first not
> conclude
>> what is the WG consensus reg
> draft-decraene-idr-rfc4360-clarification-00
>> document ?
>>
>> Main purpose for draft-decraene-idr-reserved-extended-communities-00
> is
>> that standard communities where GSHUT is already registered by IANA
>> (0xFFFF0000) do not have a way to limit propagation across AS
> boundaries.
>>
>> Therefor I think to proceed formally further WG should agree or
> disagree
>> on the former draft defining how implementations should handle AS
>> transitiveness of extended communities.
>
> Unless you specifically target
> draft-decraene-idr-reserved-extended-communities-00 for an unstated
> reason, it's seems to me that what you're asking for is that the WG
> should not do any work related to non transitive community until there
> is consensus on draft-decraene-idr-rfc4360-clarification-00. If the WG
> were to follow your request, there could be other casualties. E.g.
> draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-01. And to be fully consistent, that would
> mean requesting the IANA to stop allocating any non transitive community
> types.
>
>
> On a side note, Robert, you were at the IDR meeting when
> draft-decraene-idr-rfc4360-clarification-00 was discussed. You did not
> brought this above point that the draft was so much important. Quite the
> contrary in fact. What made you change your mind?
>
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>> Many thx,
>> R.
>>
>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> There was a certain lack of clarity during the discussion of
>>> draft-decraene-idr-reserved-extended-communities-00 at the wg
> meeting
>>> -- we got sidetracked into a tangential discussion of
>>> draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut-02 instead.  So instead of simply asking
>>> about wg adoption of the draft, I would like to remind people of the
>>> request the draft makes, and then ask.
>>>
>>> Simply put, the draft asks for the following:
>>>
>>> - to allocate a code point from the registry "BGP Extended
>>> Communities Type - extended, transitive" - to allocate a code point
>>> from the registry "BGP Extended Communities Type - extended,
>>> non-transitive" - to establish a pair of registries for values to be
>>> carried in the data portion of extended communities using
>>> respectively, either of those two code points.
>>>
>>> This seems to Sue and me to be a modest and reasonable request to
> the
>>> WG. The debate in our limited Q&A time revolved around the related
>>> gshut draft. Much as with other recent drafts, we think the
>>> conversation should be divided into two pieces:
>>>
>>> - mechanics, in this case extended community allocation and registry
>>> establishment. That is what the draft and this message relate to. -
>>> details of related applications. There seems to be a healthy
>>> conversation already taking place related to gshut, within GROW and
>>> in hallway conversations.
>>>
>>> The proposal on the table is that the extended community type codes
>>> be allocated and the requested registry established. If folks have
>>> objections to those specific work items please send them to the
> list.
>>> If adopted, we're basically done by the way -- there is really no
>>> further work for the WG, just a little for the chairs.
>>>
>>> In closing I will point out that although
>>> draft-decraene-idr-reserved-extended-communities-00 makes its
> request
>>> from the Standards Action portion of the two registries, it need not
>>> -- the authors could have requested an FCFS code point instead in
>>> which case this discussion would have been moot.  They could still
> do
>>> this.
>>>
>>> Please send any objections to allocating the type codes and
>>> establishing the registry before November 29. If you do object,
>>> please provide justification for your position.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> --John and Sue _______________________________________________ Idr
>>> mailing list [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idr mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>