Re: [Idr] IETF LC for IDR-ish document <draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05.txt> (Default EBGP Route Propagation Behavior Without Policies) to Proposed Standard

Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> Thu, 20 April 2017 09:11 UTC

Return-Path: <job@instituut.net>
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 6A99612EBA9 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.419
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 0FutJ3QH4-Xd for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-f47.google.com (mail-wm0-f47.google.com [74.125.82.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37AAE12EBA4 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-f47.google.com with SMTP id m123so31625037wma.0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=/2Y8JP4Rr5UMhSAR5S7vol13Qhxv43itX09gbQsaAQs=; b=XjcEJsFL8Bs0lLvRgucBGiguFa3OFOgyimrRqudCLn9vbCh9TojBRmwbsMy9MLwfj0 4xyYKX9TF2s7Rnlt5DaAh6pzdssQjrXnwM0rzD/rP799gDW4eIg66epQJT0eSPq1m32j M4A+9j9WIpjxFL4ccGh4TVS3Lj9hJXttrXAQQ4PCdj8XxNt+/zkOkblCNXE3LnpsTFKe iLHz+1gmR+7aEHalX78kvozdxVNq/NUDzBkoZrrNUAmRrrYeyTuVu7YuefCNFJl73i7M rBFgqZmt9ENv64SSQcN70BGMyYbJy7ZLFdobGb08k1krrE68H8UX4KCWwPhVGMIkljTb 82ig==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4Et9t9mSPGN8FGnZuOo5eZBP7wBLNBntyJm9MvKN6+dD03iuEu 0g3nKQExFjxsfQ==
X-Received: by 10.28.173.66 with SMTP id w63mr2200011wme.76.1492679466728; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([2001:67c:208c:10:4cc4:bdef:de0c:32e0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j71sm13047449wmd.12.2017.04.20.02.11.04 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:11:04 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:11:03 +0200
From: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>, Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>, idr@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170420091103.boqup65nsqgkqyjn@hanna.meerval.net>
References: <D4E812E8-AA7B-4EA2-A0AC-034AA8922306@juniper.net> <abe393d3-d1e4-7841-4620-38dab751765b@cisco.com> <B465B3A2-7538-45D5-8B27-A2B645C36C19@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <B465B3A2-7538-45D5-8B27-A2B645C36C19@gmail.com>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306 (1.8.0)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/NtgOJs5bJLp_S5G7mPqMPLP2e-E>
Subject: Re: [Idr] IETF LC for IDR-ish document <draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05.txt> (Default EBGP Route Propagation Behavior Without Policies) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:11:10 -0000

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 07:56:30PM -0700, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> +1 Enke!
> Net every network engineer (unfortunately) follows IETF (or reads
> release notes), not every vendor clearly explains default behavior
> changes..

Or is the reverse true, that IETF participants have not been tracking
operational issues? 

"People may not read release notes" is an extremely weak justification
for insecure behaviour.

Kind regards,

Job