Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-07

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

[Largely addressed to Alvaro using Job's points.]

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:10:13PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote:
> The choice to 'just' decorate subcode 2 and 4 was driven out of
> operational experience with the various shutdown events. 2 and 4 are
> human initiated (or humans program a system to do it on their behalf).
> The other sub cease codes are either driven out of existing automation
> no immediate need to enrich them was identified ("maximum prefix",
> "Connection Rejected")), or are poorly understood ("Other Configuration
> Change") or rarely used ("Out of Resources").

There's also the simple matter that a number of the behaviors for some of
these subcodes have implications for conformance testing suites.  Those
suites know what happens when you hit those controls in the CLI and
preserving the subcodes leverages existing conformance work.

Arguably, there's a chance in behavior by adding stuff to the DATA field,
but there's supporting precedent in 4271 to ignore things you don't
understand there.

In short, this was a good fit for the use case.

-- Jeff