Re: [Idr] Moving forward with draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-com-registry ExtCommunity Registry Cleanup

Job Snijders <> Wed, 03 February 2021 23:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF25B3A0BCC for <>; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 15:44:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vn2PCf_ZGW_s for <>; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 15:44:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FCF83A0BC5 for <>; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 15:44:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id t5so1778046eds.12 for <>; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:44:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=resent-from:resent-date:resent-message-id:resent-to:date:from:to:cc :subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-disposition :content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=v3pD0liINBC6t4HUyk3zvzmdJYYtpPOIcLtNH/1jCng=; b=k/rBpbY7bRC66BawBPJgHmxbPR55TW+TE32j9DEln+CCTWoYkRcJ50UIxuLjxFb8kU CsQGqybNe+5CCOVRdqebiuEs4pKATI6stmxFZR2bngrbbPEUrB7/LakjonMPO1LTPYqh b5wm53YrRmHWxpqzFkjkG223OVB8l3Bu1eYWKHoyt7FLjYAFq0nXlON/ekhZlgl0+wIg m8zDeXQak0MPhie7xFrVNMZDSIvsgCeLSQ+k8l2aDUzjBbd+C4UCa5weIo1S5g5iWp1M PV2Tcjfr33QPm11k6uou26ktsmYOIsCVx5Oww4izjfocqG6vv9/9usBfAr3wyWyhNmdx Tnxg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:resent-from:resent-date:resent-message-id :resent-to:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=v3pD0liINBC6t4HUyk3zvzmdJYYtpPOIcLtNH/1jCng=; b=WXIWuYDSW4VBuSnlzfZK/JkUgbGzuec+jyUEbbpeJIITiPMS99yrveEVF2r+qqr19F T/Bb0w+RDDlP/4gMxQZQtWNz6ro8ZIiRc5aC5Shgnf4rcUQoxLeRyydFvLPicELUNIgs Q5StpOe1HPfIKVM5ibP0Pd4m6Wqp+zXQgUuMVuO1APJAPqFFSdPN+xDRI2za4Wu5H3/5 H/XCtFH8stQqbyVABK6dFqfoHohBMubTyX33tEsuDtnFYVvMQY4HXTXY4PZYZi6plcLm h/LpA38QoERx22CQ03Yyn7wYAYoBMg3oWEwbV568J8RJm+EVYnrGm3zn82OvK70f07v6 Yddg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5320EqQbIMLRXhbiP1RYUYvKCKHEkVGEVJgWd+fjLL8mZpew5ztW 4HfOo/w+Kf6TJ7S440jpAfje1QwKHug1Idll
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwpH1YSBbSM4vzTpomSgTOuCCVitxlqqMegUTwYZxZipwA2jMtDtVE5s423lV7OERNerpSTpQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a50:fe02:: with SMTP id f2mr5425973edt.195.1612395848026; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:44:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id lz12sm1584001ejb.71.2021. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:44:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ( [local]) by (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id 3d57247b for <>; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 23:44:06 +0000 (UTC)
Resent-From: Job Snijders <>
Resent-Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 23:44:06 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 23:41:27 +0000
From: Job Snijders <>
To: Christoph Loibl <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Moving forward with draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-com-registry ExtCommunity Registry Cleanup
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: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 23:44:13 -0000

Hi Christoph,

On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 11:25:19AM +0100, Christoph Loibl wrote:
> I want to point out that these code-points have actual non
> experimental implementations in shipping products of all larger
> vendors. I think it has an advantage to “protect” these CPs from
> future experimental use.

Yup, indeed a nice advantage.

One comment:

In the "BGP Transitive Extended Community Types" registry the
'Registration Procedures" for 0x80-0x8f	list 'Reserved for Experimental Use'

However, when we zoom in on for example the 'Generic Transitive
Experimental Use Extended Community Sub-Types' registry, the listed
'Registration Procedures' are either 'FCFS' or 'IETF Review'.

To me this appears as an internal inconsistency, where I'd assume the
'most specific' procedure to take precedence? (but ... assumptions ...)

I think your draft makes sense and should proceed, but it is not clear
to me whether it would materially changes the currently listed

Is there an internal inconsistency or am I reading it wrong?

Kind regards,