Re: [Idr] WG adoption for draft-kumari-deprecate-as-set-confed-set - 8/16 to 8/30/2019

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

Dear Susan,

I would like to see the WG adopt this draft.

Kind regards,

Job

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:34:10AM -0400, Susan Hares wrote:
> Greetings: 
> 
>  
> 
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for
> draft-kumari-deprecate-as-set-confed-set
> 
> from 8/16 to 8/30/2019. 
> 
>  
> 
> This draft seeks to remove AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET from RFC4271.   
> 
> Draft is at: 
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kumari-deprecate-as-set-confed-set-14
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> To quote the draft: 
> 
>  
> 
>    "BCP 172 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp172>  [RFC6472
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6472> ] makes a recommendation for not using
> AS_SET and
>    AS_CONFED_SET in Border Gateway Protocol (BGP).  This document
>    advances the recommendation to a standards requirement in BGP"
> 
>         [aka RFC4271].
> 
>  
>    "From analysis of past Internet routing data, it is apparent that
>    aggregation that involves AS_SETs is very seldom used in practice on
>    the public Internet [Analysis
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kumari-deprecate-as-set-confed-set-14#ref
> -Analysis> ] and when it is used, it is often used
>    incorrectly -- reserved AS numbers ([RFC1930
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1930> ]) and/or only a single
>    AS in the AS_SET are by far the most common cases."
>  
>  
> In your comments on adoption, consider: 
>  
> 1)  Should the IDR WG remove AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET from BGP? 
> 2)  Is this document a reasonable document to document that removal? 
> 3)  Are there technical flaws in the arguments for removal? 
> 4)  Are there issues with the text? 
>  
> Cheerily, Susan Hares 
>  
>  
> 

> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr