IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at> Tue, 23 February 2021 11:33 UTC

Return-Path: <c@tix.at>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 500833A2A03 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 03:33:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tix.at
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yuKhrd3VVxMS for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 03:33:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.fbsd.host (mail.fbsd.host [IPv6:2001:858:58::22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 622783A2A01 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 03:33:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tix.at; s=rev1; h=References:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type :Message-Id:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=OXhhfCIBbIO5GsAVv3aP9Kmrk1WIJD71LiwvGTrZqSg=; b=uvf7COKFmy8hrQAzONa2sHCS6f 4lIG5h7Yf9bwyor085E64lWgTjiQ5fnhEucJw5BGXkyshC2I7WB0ohNShA4T3FWPwzlzI7e4tc+QV zg5Y6gC086Tg0zkmrqti5AA9G7ZJF0JuA5QAplaz0KfxuAZH1ClFZsPDPlBcwQoFLrAfj9JdKBWaW 9P6/crOA4u6J9X4nMEmN8Iz+ev/0uZGDbGDDVya5gDU+QXzhHQbBDz+YL3HI0++MXyqOmi1ci0vk8 jppyXyAsujKiQS+uO3kXWDYpfxJkBBYvpmqbDnmWkU6OUkyQU0gkwnVhRBrYqRANU39UpRwv9U1ML ccPkOQDA==;
Received: from 80-110-97-187.cgn.dynamic.surfer.at ([80.110.97.187] helo=[192.168.66.149]) by mail.fbsd.host with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from <c@tix.at>) id 1lEVwN-000OZV-Mj; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 12:33:20 +0100
From: Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at>
Message-Id: <92A75B74-6D81-4F95-8B87-A2483E79AE16@tix.at>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6FD49000-2BFB-447B-982E-26D64CCC6972"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 12:33:18 +0100
In-Reply-To: <YBs0p9f9viSplyU7@bench.sobornost.net>
Cc: idr@ietf.org
To: Job Snijders <job@sobornost.net>
References: <17C2BD71-20D7-432E-B5D3-54D2F537EBD0@tix.at> <YBs0p9f9viSplyU7@bench.sobornost.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
X-Scanned-By: ClamAV primary on mail.fbsd.host (78.142.178.22); Tue, 23 Feb 2021 12:33:19 +0100
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 80.110.97.187
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: c@tix.at
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on mail.fbsd.host); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/NbUMEj0-Rfe32_6q4rXs6cJhYvA>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Moving forward with draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-com-registry ExtCommunity Registry Cleanup
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 11:33:31 -0000

Hi Job,

Thanks for your response. 

AFAIK the mentioned registries do not have any structural dependencies in the sense that registration procedures get propagated from Extended-Community-Types to Sub-Types. 

The draft fixes the documentation of some of the Extended-Community-Types (this includes changing the registration procedure for those Community-Types ). The sub-type registries are only renamed. Changes are kept to a minimum required to solve the misleading-documentation.

Cheers Christoph

-- 
Christoph Loibl
c@tix.at | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | http://www.nextlayer.at



> On 04.02.2021, at 00:41, Job Snijders <job@sobornost.net> wrote:
> 
> 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
> procedures.
> 
> Is there an internal inconsistency or am I reading it wrong?
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Job

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email