Re: [Idr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Wed, 07 August 2019 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.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 3DCF8120305 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 08:08:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 9LRx1bf3aX8I for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 08:08:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-100-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.100]) (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 1E0E0120173 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 08:08:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=97.112.26.170;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: "'Brian Dickson'" <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>, "'Zhuangshunwan'" <zhuangshunwan@huawei.com>, <idr@ietf.org>
Cc: <idr@ietf.org>
References: <19AB2A007F56DB4E8257F949A2FB9858E5C64D30@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <CAH1iCion=v7=9ozk0YoLZA5EhYxc4twaoN_PpphMBWp3-O=yOw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH1iCion=v7=9ozk0YoLZA5EhYxc4twaoN_PpphMBWp3-O=yOw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 11:08:04 -0400
Message-ID: <012901d54d31$ea7a7d90$bf6f78b0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_012A_01D54D10.636C38F0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQE3qCzNbx1uCuIdTgkVsEUhkSw7WQKX+VqVqBZTFIA=
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 190807-0, 08/07/2019), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/V06pZahnceNYK0y2i9fuiB-8vnw>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy
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: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 15:08:24 -0000

Brian and Shunwan: 

<chair hat on> 

 

Based on Alvaro’s reading of the early allocation policy, all you have to do at this point is ask the chairs. 

You have an draft.  Alvaro will approve the early allocation based on the draft. 

 

I hope this encourages the draft-idr-bgp-open-policy to simply ask.  I can process the request today. 

 

Cheerily,

Susan Hares

 

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Dickson
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 4:48 PM
To: Zhuangshunwan
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy

 

 

 

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 7:50 PM Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan@huawei.com>; wrote:

Hi guys,

 

Section 9 of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-06 says:

…

   This document defines a new optional, transitive BGP Path Attributes

   option, named "Only To Customer", assigned value <TBD3> [To be

   removed upon publication: http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-

   parameters/bgp-parameters.xhtml#bgp-parameters-2] [RFC4271].  The

   length of this attribute is 0.

 

[Comment]  The length of this attribute should be 4 per the description of section 6. 

Type 35 with the name “Internal Only To Customer” has been assigned to previous version of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy. Can we simply use Type 35 for "Only To Customer" attribute, or apply a new one?

 

IMNSHO, apply for a new one.

(It's not like there is a danger of running out any time soon.)

 

Technically, the previous one had different meaning/semantics, and was assigned. 

The principal of "don't re-use, no matter what" should apply to be 100% certain no one did an early implementation that now conflicts with the new semantics.

It is the only way to be safe for absolute certain.

 

Brian

 

 Thanks,

Shunwan

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr