Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-13.txt

[Vitkovský Adam <[e-mail]>]

I think we should leave the semantics out of it and Jeff I really like your sentence: 

> It may thus be worthwhile simplifying the section:
> "If the next hop field contains a semantically incorrect address within the
> context of deployed features and address family, treat as withdraw behavior
> should be used." 

However I would leave the martians out. 
We should not dictate what addresses may be used as NH in various BGP features - that would be for another document. 

We should focus on the syntactic correctness of the NH 
And I think Chris has some valid questions there: 

> UNLESS, that is, there are next-hop errors which should be deemed mortal.
> The NEXT_HOP attribute can be completely broken without affecting the
> Parsing of NLRI.  But for MP_REACH_NLRI:
> 
>   (1) noting that (a) the draft treats invalid prefix
>       lengths as mortal errors, because they cast doubt
>       on the Parsing of NLRI...
> 
>       ...and that (b) in an MP_REACH_NLRI, the start of
>       the NLRI is given by the next-hop-length....
> 
>       ...is an invalid next-hop-length a mortal error ?
> 
>   (2) some Next-Hop values could be deemed "nonsense",
>       meaning that their presence should be considered
>       a symptom of a much more serious underlying
>       error, so...
> 
>       ...are there any Next-Hop values that should be
>       deemed mortal errors ?
> 
> Chris


adam