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 <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:54:29AM -0400, Eric C Rosen wrote:
> Well, it didn't take long for this thread to reach the point of
> diminishing returns.

As is often the case when people engage in polemic debate.

> FWIW, my take on it is the following.
> 
> The document should not be considered to be an update to 4271, as it
> does not change anything 4271 says, and does not update or extend the
> protocol in any way.  Standards track seems entirely inappropriate, as
> there is no protocol specification in it.

The Area Director and the IDR Chairs believe that the document actually
should update 4271, and the next version of this document will be an
attempt to codify that. Some of the authors expressed concerns, but we
are never the less willing to put in the work.

Should you be interested in how an update to 4271 could be formulated,
please take a look at:

    http://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/jaredmauch/draft-mauch-bgp-reject/blob/alvaro/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-06-from-5.diff.html

> The document is not really a Best Current Practices document, as it
> advocates a change from current practice.

Eric, you fail to acknowledge that already today, in widely deployed
software, a myriad of behaviours exist in this regard. There is no
"current practice".

> The document is okay as an Informational document representing the
> consensus of the GROW WG.  It would be nice if the document indicated
> that it only considers the use of BGP when providing Internet service,
> and does not consider other uses of BGP.  It would also be nice if the
> document indicated that there may be unintended side-effects of
> changing the defaults, but the authors consider those to be of no
> consequence.

Your concern is noted.

Kind regards,

Job