IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-06: (with DISCUSS)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 29 September 2015 22:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9D871B5441; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 ydA95iapiiT4; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 EE5441B5440; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:18:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t8TMItxb066890 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:18:56 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.23]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:18:55 -0500
Message-ID: <1CD76B5B-A160-4820-A87A-A0BDB5C513B5@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150929221347.GH5754@pfrc.org>
References: <20150916175709.15284.39811.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D21FADDE.D11E6%aretana@cisco.com> <D22192F2.69F88%wesley.george@twcable.com> <8C52202E-2B65-41C5-9E95-DDBD0EC263B7@nostrum.com> <D2270D59.D2D74%aretana@cisco.com> <02D24C30-23D4-4147-B07D-332676E953AE@nostrum.com> <001401d0fa25$8a9e79c0$9fdb6d40$@ndzh.com> <EBB510E0-C934-47AC-91B6-CFDD45A33C80@nostrum.com> <20150929205551.GF5754@pfrc.org> <C2FFAF49-8F3D-40C8-A9CB-B4CF48AAD56F@nostrum.com> <20150929221347.GH5754@pfrc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.2r5141)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/U51IP-pTIoh8u4sT1PLMcXT5vnY>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-as-migration@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, idr-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-06: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 22:18:58 -0000

On 29 Sep 2015, at 17:13, Jeffrey Haas wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 04:27:46PM -0500, Ben Campbell wrote:
>
>> So I'm confused again. That sounds like an argument for an
>> informational RFC, or maybe even a BCP.
>
>
> IMO, the status is *fine* and is really the best mapping we're going 
> to get.
> There is one part practice, one part deployment wisdom and - the thing 
> being
> truly documented - the behavior changes done in the protocol within 
> the AS
> undergoing migration.
>
> The alternative is to ask for a status of "this is weird and doesn't 
> really
> fit".

So I think maybe the problem is that part of the draft defines standards 
and part doesn't. Short of splitting them (which I don't think makes 
sense this late in the process, one way of fixing the issue would be to 
change or add text to paragraph 1 in the introduction to say something 
to the effect of "Additionally, this document makes changes to the 
standard protocol behavior during a migration".

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email