Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt (10/17/2016 to 10/31/2016)
From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
To: Peter Hessler <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:24:18 -0500
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 05:11:18PM +0200, Peter Hessler wrote:
> On 2016 Oct 20 (Thu) at 15:53:36 +0100 (+0100), t.petch wrote:
> :MUST be an ASN works for me, or, paradoxically, MAY be an ASN (since
> :then it should be obvious the fields cannot be relied on); the idea of
> :stripping them so that they are not transitive has been floated (or make
> :the attribute non-transitive) and I think rejected.
> 
> I am very happy with MAY instead of SHOULD.
> 
>    Global Administrator:  A four-octet namespace identifier.  This
>       MAY be an Autonomous System Number.
> 
> Is this acceptable to you?

No. If some network squats on 2914: because they put 0.0.11.98: in the
global administrator, good for them. Just like with rfc1997, we know to
deal with that.  

SHOULD aligns with reality. This topic should be closed, perhaps we can
agree to disagree.

We seem to be suffering from Parkinson's law of triviality.

Kind regards,

Job