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

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

Alvaro,


> On Mar 19, 2021, at 4:54 PM, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> 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