Re: [Idr] BGP autodiscovery design team

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Thu, 05 December 2019 22:43 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 DC67F1201A3 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 14:43:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 UQo2N4qDGyee for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 14:43:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B1C9120168 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 14:43:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1iczq8-0003ib-4W; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 22:43:16 +0000
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 14:43:15 -0800
Message-ID: <m25ziuv1fg.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: "UTTARO, JAMES" <ju1738@att.com>
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <B17A6910EEDD1F45980687268941550F4DA2809D@MISOUT7MSGUSRCD.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <E7E38075-54F2-4F16-97BE-EE24943B5BFE@juniper.net> <CAOj+MMG7d4H2R_aZU0xQoW+a=wvgqn1oaOPQb-L1NJ2qX_07cg@mail.gmail.com> <B17A6910EEDD1F45980687268941550F4DA2809D@MISOUT7MSGUSRCD.ITServices.sbc.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/26.2 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TV6M0WwgS-Lz9rFYuvxyHjCqiaM>
Subject: Re: [Idr] BGP autodiscovery design team
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: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 22:43:20 -0000

> I agree with Roberts’ point. Prior to crafting or selecting a draft as
> the basis for a proposal the design team should clearly articulate the
> scope, use cases and requirements that need to be addressed. IMO
> stating that in an informational RFC is a good way to ensure that all
> stakeholders are in agreement as to what the eventual
> specification/draft addresses, and as important does not address.

while i am tempted to agree with you, i see it from a different vector.

imiho, if we agreed to constrain solutions to the absolute minimal
mechanism, we might be able to cover a significant subset of clos, ibgp,
inter-provider, and ixp.

if we do not constrain to the minimial mechanism, we will make a complex
and disgusting mess of boiling the ocean on {pick any one of the above}.

i think it was tony hoare who said something such as

   there are two kinds of standards,
     - the intersection of what everybody *must* have
     - the union of what everybody thinks they could want

randy