Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-attribute-announcement dead on arrival?

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 12 October 2016 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 DA33112944D for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.517
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 uhg4Gldcn6QV for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BD9312946E for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1988; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1476281869; x=1477491469; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=8fKEi99ylP6oNK4KXKbZpMRGASqWa7f2oFHVV5nq2Ls=; b=DnYWc27oEnYW0oriyE2mArTmpNEedP/61vTqiRSVvChGcka1xM9WGjgU 1JJoLHjmKSgbVM6W7sdQhAwDGuy20zm+X6AvrBwmMO/DY5FSkCV2utBuD 4NIq+pUeIhdfu237szpaNSpsR9VYYfaBMSr7vI/ZaRdZXH7c62X9p3iaX I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BsAQByRf5X/51dJa1cGgEBAQECAQEBAQgBAQEBgzwBAQEBAR2BUweNLJcFlDSCDIYgAhqCCTgUAQIBAQEBAQEBXieEYgEBBCMRRRACAQgOCgICJgICAjAVEAIEDgUUB4g1tkyNBAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEfgQeKC4dLglsBBJoCAY98j3WMeYN+AR42ToRicodkgQABAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,482,1473120000"; d="scan'208";a="161908382"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Oct 2016 14:17:48 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-012.cisco.com (xch-rtp-012.cisco.com [64.101.220.152]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u9CEHm3v009887 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:17:48 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-012.cisco.com (64.101.220.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 10:17:47 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 10:17:47 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-attribute-announcement dead on arrival?
Thread-Index: AQHSHx/3C4MhuBw1H0iZDgaAwvyZqqCkGeTLgACapwCAAG/YgP//xCkA
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:17:47 +0000
Message-ID: <D423BDA1.82604%acee@cisco.com>
References: <0E9469C4-2B72-484A-9C93-BC13401F6889@pfrc.org> <003901d21f20$95ece2f0$c1c6a8d0$@ndzh.com> <CAHxMReZQ-t6dFY--CYw-NomyD=Z8uq2p=sjCj99J2Sa6wZDDCw@mail.gmail.com> <D423912E.825A6%acee@cisco.com> <20161012135155.GF22695@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20161012135155.GF22695@pfrc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.200]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <7C5A19A21AFFBB4D81BC38F1F4744770@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Tg0LZuwuracfyKyWXIJyrJpP2c0>
Cc: IETF IDR WG <idr@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-attribute-announcement dead on arrival?
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:17:51 -0000

Hi Jeff, 

On 10/12/16, 9:51 AM, "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:

>Acee (and Sue earlier)
>
>On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 11:11:38AM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>> I agree with Rob that WG adoption of large communities in no way
>>implies that attribute scoping is not a requirement and should not also
>>be pursued.
>> 
>> In fact, there may even be hope for wide communities to evolve into the
>>long term solution.
>
>I would honestly prefer this conversation pretends the wide community
>draft
>doesn't exist.  People keep getting hung up on it.
>
>This is more the general long term question.
>
>My intention a day after Sue's response had been to scrub the list of
>pending path attribute features in IDR, BESS, etc., but I've not found the
>time to do that yet.
>
>WRT large communities, the main reason I cite that conversation is not an
>attempt to "beat the dead horse", but to point out what was brought up as
>technical objections to such header mechanisms.  If the WG simply wants to
>declare what was raised as technical objections as non-technical
>objections
>(i.e. "we simply didn't want to") - so be it.  But that's not how the
>narrative ran.

Ok - so the dead-on-arrival comment was in the context of the generic
community header (which would be a logical place for scoping) not being
included in the large communities draft. I hope I understand now.


Thanks,
Acee 


>
>-- Jeff