Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-09

Jeffrey Haas <> Fri, 19 March 2021 21:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A21C93A107D; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nmqi-zi4lXZ4; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 826693A107C; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DAC261E409; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 17:32:09 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AF499FA5-5608-426D-AA0C-2E3BF785898B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
From: Jeffrey Haas <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 17:10:36 -0400
Cc: Sue Hares <>,, "" <>, IDR List <>
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Alvaro Retana <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-09
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: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 21:10:41 -0000


> On Mar 19, 2021, at 4:54 PM, Alvaro Retana <> wrote:
> Yes, you’re right.  
> Are you suggesting that we don’t need that extension in this document, or that we don’t need it at all?  I would be fine with it not being in this document — not a high priority, but it is something we probably want to get to at some point.

Speaking as an individual contributor, adding at least one sub-code would make sense in the document since it potentially exacerbates the existing issue.

It does mean that no implementation of this would be out of the box compliant.  Given IDR's tradition of two interoperable implementations, I'm not sure how we'd proceed.  Certainly for my own code base, it's probably a 5 line diff.  That said, since the sub-code isn't specified, who knows what the other implementations do?

It's a nice to have bit of debugging, but doesn't impact protocol behavior beyond that.  You'd want to trigger an updated WGLC, I think, if such a change happened.  Given the document requires at least one spin to cover your review, there's certainly time.

-- Jeff