Re: [Idr] WG adoption for draft-kumari-deprecate-as-set-confed-set - 8/16 to 8/30/2019 - Accepted as WG draft

"Susan Hares" <> Mon, 02 September 2019 17:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 270CA12004E for <>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 10:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.948
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5DX9ODUx-iTp for <>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 10:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C6F412002F for <>; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 10:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: "Susan Hares" <>
To: <>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 13:51:40 -0400
Message-ID: <002401d561b7$13966330$3ac32990$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0025_01D56195.8C8697F0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdVhtxMSJAr6P1ynTuC0x4We1+8Zgg==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 190902-0, 09/02/2019), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption for draft-kumari-deprecate-as-set-confed-set - 8/16 to 8/30/2019 - Accepted as WG draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 17:51:45 -0000



The consensus of the WG is that this draft should be accepted as a

WG draft, but that additional specification is needed. 


The authors should post draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set-00.txt. 


It is key that the authors look at the comments on what conforming

Should do if they do receive a set.   See the messages from Randy Bush, 

Jeff Haas and others  on this issue for this  draft.


I expect the authors to post a message on how what conforming 

implementations should do and text that will provide explicit actions. 


Cheers, Susan Hares 


From: Idr [] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 10:34 AM
Subject: [Idr] WG adoption for draft-kumari-deprecate-as-set-confed-set -
8/16 to 8/30/2019




This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for

from 8/16 to 8/30/2019. 


This draft seeks to remove AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET from RFC4271.   

Draft is at:



To quote the draft: 


   "BCP 172 <>  [RFC6472
<> ] makes a recommendation for not using
AS_SET and
   AS_CONFED_SET in Border Gateway Protocol (BGP).  This document
   advances the recommendation to a standards requirement in BGP"

        [aka RFC4271].

   "From analysis of past Internet routing data, it is apparent that
   aggregation that involves AS_SETs is very seldom used in practice on
   the public Internet [Analysis
-Analysis> ] and when it is used, it is often used
   incorrectly -- reserved AS numbers ([RFC1930
<> ]) and/or only a single
   AS in the AS_SET are by far the most common cases."
In your comments on adoption, consider: 
1)  Should the IDR WG remove AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET from BGP? 
2)  Is this document a reasonable document to document that removal? 
3)  Are there technical flaws in the arguments for removal? 
4)  Are there issues with the text? 
Cheerily, Susan Hares