Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-14.txt

Posted as -15.

--John

On Oct 22, 2014, at 3:41 PM, John G. Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> wrote:

> Rob,
> 
> Thanks for your comments. With regard to the first, how do you (and the WG) feel about this paragraph for the end of the Operations section?
> 
>   Section 8 mentions that attribute discard should not be used in cases
>   where "the attribute in question has or may have an effect on route
>   selection."  Although all cases that specify attribute discard in
>   this document do not affect route selection by default, in principle
>   routing policies could be written which affect selection based on
>   such an attribute.  Operators should take care when writing such
>   policies to consider the possible consequences of an attribute
>   discard.  (In general, as long as such policies are only used on
>   external BGP sessions, correctness issues are not expected to arise.)
> 
> Regarding ELC, thanks for catching that! Considering that we're excluding deprecated attributes from consideration in this document, and considering that draft-ietf-mpls-deprecate-bgp-entropy-label has been approved for publication as an RFC, I think it's safe for me to remove all references to RFC 6790. 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> --John
> 
> On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:25 AM, Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh> wrote:
> 
>> Hi John, IDR,
>> 
>> On 3 Sep 2014, at 20:39, John G. Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> In short, it removes the discussion of what it means for an NLRI to be incorrect.
>>> Reviewers may want to pay particular attention to S. 7.11.
>> 
>> Sorry for the delay in sending over some comments.
>> 
>> First off, thanks to the authors for the work on this doc — it’s taken something that 
>> we’ve debated in length on the IDR list and resulted in (IMHO) a very clean document 
>> that does a good job of explaining the motivation and revisions to the error handling 
>> behaviour.
>> 
>> I had some very minor comments:
>> 
>> 	- Currently, when the text discusses attribute discard, it links this to 
>> 	  something that cannot affect the route selection. Since in most routing 
>> 	  policy languages, one could potentially match on /any/ attribute if one
>> 	  so wanted, then I was wondering whether it was worth adding something into
>> 	  the operational considerations section that briefly noted that operators
>> 	  SHOULD NOT implement policies which influence route selection based on an
>> 	  attribute that might be discarded.
>> 
>> 	- In 7.16, we re-define the error handling for BGP ELC, but I noted the
>> 	  existence of draft-ietf-idr-mpls-deprecate-bgp-entropy-label. I’m not sure
>> 	  whether it is still worth including this analysis, or whether it is worth
>> 	  noting that this attribute is (likely to be) deprecated.
>> 
>> Other than this, thanks again for the work on this document.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> r.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr