[Idr] Re: WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set-14 (7/8 to 7/ - call continues from 7/8 to 7/26/2024

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

>> i guess i missed some discussion, but could someone please explain the
>> use of SHOULD as opposed to MUST here?
> Discussed here.
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Gz7HXS9IXBYDHVhq7AjrceGSAk4/
> 
> : > Regardless of the text in an RFC, the transition won't be immediate.  I
> : > don't agree with the use of "SHOULD NOT" with the explicit intent "of
> : > allowing some transition time".  Using this language provides a hole that
> : > allows conformant implementations to continue to use AS_SETs or
> : > AS_CONFED_SET indefinitely.
> : 
> : This generally overlaps the thread started on wgchairs on MUST/SHOULD
> : regarding conformance.  
> : 
> : If an implementation is capable of generating sets in spite of otherwise
> : supporting every other single thing in this document, it becomes
> : non-conformant.  I.e., simple configuration otherwise does not generate
> : as-sets.
> : 
> : Implementors and vendors should carefully consider whether they have an
> : interest in supporting an RFC that they immediately become non-conformant
> : with if they have no intention of immediately neutering existing code. I
> : suggest you consult your own employer's product management for impact on
> : RFPs.  "Partially compliant" vs. security related standards tends to
> : downscore you.
> : 
> : Beyond that point, I'm supportive of the text above moving away from the
> : "transition time" portion of the argument.  We're past that.  As I predicted
> : at the microphone the first time this was presented at IDR before I was an
> : author, this has mostly been a self-solving problem.

there are many rfcs which various vendors do not implement.

but, if you believe this, imiho this draft becomes useless and should
fail last call.

randy