Re: [Idr] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-idr-as4bytes-11.txt

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> This is to start the WG Last Call on advancing draft-ietf-idr-as4bytes-11.txt
> to a Proposed Standard. The implementation report is
> draft-huston-idr-as4bytes-survey-00.txt.

high-level bits:

I don't think I've seen justification for this particular approach; if 
this is superior to the others for some reason, maybe background could 
be discussed a bit in the doc (e.g., in a missing "Introduction" 
section).

Specifically, I don't see why we couldn't just simply start using 
NEW_AS_PATH and NEW_AGGREGATOR and keep the old elements as-is -- 
changing the encoding of BGP messages based on the negotiated 
capabilities seems a bit troubling.

An additional concern is synthetization of BGP attributes when 
propagating messages.  One could ask whether this is really necessary 
or not.  I think it would be reasonbly to require that each transit AS 
which would be passing NEW_* attributes should be aware of them. 
Further, this approach could have security considerations if so/sBGP 
were to be deployed.

editorial nits
--------------

numerous nits, such as:
  - numbered status of this memo/abstract
  - references in the abstract
  - a non-ascii character

    For the purpose of this document lets define a BGP speaker which does

==> s/lets/we/

   NEW_AS_PATH.  This attribute is optional transitive and contains the

==> s/attribute is optional transitive/is an optional transitive 
attribute/
(similar elsewhere)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr