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

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Fri, 16 August 2019 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
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 2A461120288 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 07:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 E0iQGzLao_xA for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 07:34:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-100-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.100]) (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 E84C6120255 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 07:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=97.112.26.170;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: <idr@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:34:10 -0400
Message-ID: <012001d5543f$ab7015a0$025040e0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0121_01D5541E.2460E6A0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdVUP5XbS3OaR+4MTPKBP/kmzc5zyg==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 190816-2, 08/16/2019), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/SKRACF098_y9qlVTqjvb0QfPJe0>
Subject: [Idr] WG adoption for draft-kumari-deprecate-as-set-confed-set - 8/16 to 8/30/2019
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: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 14:34:14 -0000

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