Re: [Idr] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-pmohapat-idr-acceptown-community-01.txt

Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net> Wed, 30 April 2008 20:40 UTC

Return-Path: <idr-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: idr-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-idr-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87EF43A696A; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96B683A696A for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.506
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jEaNZ34QztcJ for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dog.tcb.net (dog.tcb.net [64.78.150.133]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE8543A68AF for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by dog.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 0) id AC0F82680D7; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:40:21 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.103] (VDSL-151-118-146-11.DNVR.QWEST.NET [151.118.146.11]) (authenticated-user smtp) (TLSv1/SSLv3 AES128-SHA 128/128) by dog.tcb.net with SMTP; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:40:21 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from danny@tcb.net)
X-Avenger: version=0.7.8; receiver=dog.tcb.net; client-ip=151.118.146.11; client-port=56717; syn-fingerprint=65535:55:1:64:M1316,N,W3,N,N,T,S; data-bytes=0
Message-Id: <DC5EBA07-BBE5-4D6D-9F3E-C40C66ACE34B@tcb.net>
From: Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net>
To: Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4818D897.3070804@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:40:05 -0600
References: <20080425213001.4EB133A69E7@core3.amsl.com> <64E4CA6A-B8E4-4390-BDA6-39EF28E95AEA@tcb.net> <7000E71D8C525042A815432358B2F1240138D45E@paul.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net> <DE879141-E245-4051-A04D-9FF5CF97F892@bgp.nu> <39074353-26E5-4239-A193-E4DD84AE75A0@tcb.net> <014A2382-C5CE-4657-B4DA-FC84D7772359@bgp.nu> <4686A93B-EF16-48DC-9775-1BD241575360@tcb.net> <4818D897.3070804@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2)
Cc: idr idr <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-pmohapat-idr-acceptown-community-01.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org

On Apr 30, 2008, at 2:37 PM, Enke Chen wrote:

> Hi, Danny:
>
> Regarding the specific change from 1966 to RFC 2796 that you  
> mentioned, the reason was to make the spec. be consistent with the  
> deployment (which has the behavior since Day 1 of the RR era).

Not all implementations, else I'd have not seen conflicts ~10
years ago between two of the most prominent implementations.

> AFAIK, there is nothing unusual about it in the iterative process  
> for a protocol, and it is not alone. Take RFC 4271 as an example,  
> one of the changes is the following:
>
>    UPDATE Message Error subcode 7 (AS Routing Loop) has been  
> deprecated.
>
>
> The change reflects deployment and allows for implementation  
> flexibility.

Flexibility?  That's a gratuitous choice of words...

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