[Idr] Re: [iesg] Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc4360-bis-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Nat,

This works for me. I hope it works for Eric and Jeff as well.

I see discussion on the same point in the thread with Mahesh. Can you
please propose the same text in that thread?

Thanks,
Ketan


On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 9:22 AM Nat Kao <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello, Éric, Jeff & Ketan.
>
> How about the following modifications?
>
> CURRENT:
>
> Global Administrator sub-field: 2 octetsThis sub-field contains an
> Autonomous System number assigned by IANA.For a non-mappable four-octet
> Autonomous System number [RFC6793], the BGP speaker SHOULD fill AS_TRANS
> [RFC6793] in this field. This sub-field MAY contain an arbitrary value
> chosen by the operator, provided it is allowed by the specific extended
> community.
> PROPOSED:
>
> Global Administrator sub-field: 2 octets
> This sub-field SHOULD be set to the Autonomous System number of the router
> that attaches the extended community, unless:
>
>    - For a non-mappable four-octet Autonomous System number [RFC6793],
>    AS_TRANS [RFC6793] SHOULD be used in this sub-field.
>    - Should the operational requirements arise, it MAY contain an
>    arbitrary value chosen by the operator, provided it is allowed by the
>    specific extended community.
>
>
> Many Thanks.
> Nat
>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 10:23 PM Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> Regarding your DISCUSS point, the very same topic came up a few months ago
>> during IESG review in the context of draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth. I
>> agree
>> with Jeff that this SHOULD should not be changed.
>>
>> I will suggest the authors look at the similar text in
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc10005.html#section-2 and see if some of
>> it can be used with appropriate wordsmithing in this document to explain
>> the background.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ketan
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 7:23 PM Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> > Éric,
>> >
>> >
>> > > On Jul 6, 2026, at 08:46, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <
>> [e-mail]>
>> > wrote:
>> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > DISCUSS:
>> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > ## DISCUSS (blocking)
>> > >
>> > > ### Section 3.1
>> > >
>> > > Why not a "MUST" in `For a non-mappable four-octet Autonomous System
>> > number
>> > > [RFC6793], the BGP speaker SHOULD fill AS_TRANS [RFC6793] in this
>> field
>
>