[Idr] Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-nhc-05: (with COMMENT)

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

I support this option.

-- Jeff 

> On Jun 1, 2026, at 16:02, Scudder, John <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jeff and all, 
> 
> Jeff’s message reminded me that I omitted another option: Delete the contentious sentences, as in:
> 
> OLD:
>   Under the circumstances described in Section 2.2.1, when a route
>   includes only a link-local address and no global address, the BGPID
>   MUST be included.  Under other circumstances, the BGPID SHOULD NOT be
>   included.
> 
> NEW:
>   Under the circumstances described in Section 2.2.1, when a route
>   includes only a link-local address and no global address, the BGPID
>   MUST be included.  
> 
> OLD:
>   Other uses of the BGPID are beyond the scope of this document.  In
>   particular, if a route is received that has a global part to its next
>   hop and thus does not match the circumstances described in
>   Section 2.2.1, but which nonetheless has a BGPID, the BGPID SHOULD be
>   disregarded.
> 
> NEW:
>    <no text>
> 
> Now that I think about it, I rather like this solution. It returns us to the semantics of version 02, but without the explicit MAY that caused angst because it was seen as leading naïve developers astray.
> 
> I’d like to make this my new strawman proposal.
> 
> —John