Re: [Idr] IETF LC for IDR-ish document <draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05.txt> (Default EBGP Route Propagation Behavior Without Policies) to Proposed Standard

Job Snijders <> Fri, 21 April 2017 12:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 080E1126DCA for <>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 05:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FK_hI2twJP0f for <>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 05:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F0AD124234 for <>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 05:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r190so16186740wme.1 for <>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 05:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Pfg3+W/l2JsTzQRgflUg3HvWUDLsbHUeccgeTwhqO0s=; b=FIwYJJeZYB56WUqqfZ42wg06KTO8U/mHlOLmNuHWKVjNA3L7xr7+mvkzjGxIl48FmY Oguze56xvcoQ0pGsY+XHn0A0jm+3bDfiidenzFdU4xxIHOGIajUnl20W9hrCXqeLMQ3x bxzTmTXWRDk1cdjG0rKK0pCx4JhJDDswiQbBMe9CrQTgRdqbi8lsJET4zIBck1k35Krp G9DMmJnSjEyjUBECNlr5xyWuMlsJGMRo9zc2QhAG2z55rARgQABnEqiK1kL9OU4C5UzD 8a0s7eRe2NfgBQrRdzNmkFVD6NSuLCOOcGjXK1eS8HmRNsS8r5aEDcb8AZkLP1EWdggD ojDw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Pfg3+W/l2JsTzQRgflUg3HvWUDLsbHUeccgeTwhqO0s=; b=sWIyU2LK3i4M7NFXWrnASdl3lrJmOBIjMhRSS2wiUeguj7I3rsQWSGFH3lxHsp/eDQ 1rj3aZg3eoV9kGnOgfl226fWq/d7tjuzgEcOwsfl6XJ92WqAnTH+BfOGr/+wcutcFUSV QtKQiu4gujVfLcaoqEYjmQp/VqQU4eU3KDU5urpn/l1XvmA6ybxQdcO1PEbt7BtrjpjD tdwW14N0+pxheuZL4bBX4uJDonOOxYTQBssRK8pboAR2mnpbfz38hoOci9A8rFMOuKnq EDMXKIQbVrawvTCPLO6ayujmhqwURwBp/Mn2y/aBQc3AEIhzWqf7kvw/hR3xTqUqhco4 1ysA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6iXMsjCOrhD8Hr5aPabkgzyW8xcilz6PK69veUIkIx/hhR3g/N 3YNsXsZ1d7vnDg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id l20mr7763251wmd.6.1492778412826; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 05:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([2001:67c:208c:10:154d:67d1:53a6:3be]) by with ESMTPSA id o19sm394203edo.16.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 21 Apr 2017 05:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:40:11 +0200
From: Job Snijders <>
Cc: Eric C Rosen <>, Tony Przygienda <>, Brian Dickson <>, "" <>
Message-ID: <20170421124011.mdxpyoijvfh7eus4@Vurt.local>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <28014_1492762849_58F9C0E0_28014_6541_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A31CC3773@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20170421090145.f5yuhimb4qg7knrf@Vurt.local> <19977_1492775899_58F9F3DB_19977_3102_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A31CC3DAC@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <19977_1492775899_58F9F3DB_19977_3102_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A31CC3DAC@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306 (1.8.0)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] IETF LC for IDR-ish document <draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05.txt> (Default EBGP Route Propagation Behavior Without Policies) to Proposed Standard
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 12:40:17 -0000

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:58:18AM +0000, wrote:
> > From: Job Snijders []  > Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 11:02 AM
>  > You create a false dilemma stating that it is not clear to you
>  > whether this is a "requirement draft or a solution draft", 
> That editorial point should be easy to address.
> > and that those need to be separate.
> I've not said that.

The use of the word 'or' in your sentence """it's not clear whether this
draft is a requirement draft or a solution draft.""" led me to believe
that you assert the two are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, from the
context it appears that you recommend to abandon 'bgp-reject', start
over with a requirements document, and then see what happens. If this is
not the case please elaborate, and accept my apologies for interpreting
it as I did.

>  > Did you review Alvaro's suggested changes which prompted the third IDR
>  > consultation on this topic? They are viewable here:
>  > 
>  >
>  > reject/blob/alvaro/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-06-from-5.diff.html
> I was discussing the current version of the draft and comments sent on
> the mailing list (e.g less than 24 hours ago, one author commented
> that it does not believe that this document should be changed to
> update RFC 4271: " I believe that Alvaro is wrong in the presumption
> this document updates 4271. ".
> I was not aware of this private repository. Indeed, this candidate
> version is significantly different than the public one.

The link to the publicly available private repository was meant as a
convenience to you and the WG. It is a verbatim repetition of Alvaro's
suggestions which were emailed to idr@ on April 18th. I hoped to make
Alvaro's comments easier to read by creating the HTML rfcdiff. Did you
perhaps miss that message?

>  > I'm disappointed that you've taken a CLI example I've provided as
>  > the sole driver behind this effort. I did not mean to offer the CLI
>  > example as an exhaustive list of reasons.
> That this incorrect: I've commented on this driver, plus the ones
> indicated in the draft. What's missing has been authors' answer for
> those requests for clarification.  For the third time, could authors
> please document in the draft the drivers and the goal(s) that this
> document aims at achieving. Then we'll be able to take into account
> all drivers, plus authors will get IDR attention to their operational
> feedback. Should be win-win.

Please review the Introduction section of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05.

Should you fail to identify drivers and goals in that section, can you
elaborate what it is you do read in that section? 

I find it hard to believe that the Introduction passed through SECDIR,
RTGDIR, GENART, OPSDIR, and GROW Last Call, and was clear to those
involved, yet you indicate that drivers & goals are not clear, I am not
sure what I can do to further your understanding in that regard.

Kind regards,