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

[Jon Mitchell <[e-mail]>]

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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Randy
> Bush
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 12:04 PM
> To: Nick Hilliard
> Cc: [e-mail]
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr