Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-03.txt

["Chris Hall" <[e-mail]>]

Jakob Heitz wrote (on Mon 10-Dec-2012 at 00:33 +0000):
> On Dec 9, 2012, at 4:12 PM, Chris Hall wrote:
....
> > Hmmm.  Section 3 of the draft states:
> >
> >  "To facilitate the determination of the NLRI field
> >   in an UPDATE with a malformed attribute, the
> >   MP_REACH_NLRI or MP_UNREACH_NLRI attribute (if
> >   present) SHALL be encoded as the very first..."
> >
> > which looks like a change in peer behaviour to me... but my
> > eyesight is not what it was ?

> That is not required. It is a SHALL. If the peer does it, great. If
> not, nothing broke.  It's different to requiring a protocol change.

Dunno where this is getting us, but RFC2119:

  1. MUST   This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean
     that the definition is an absolute requirement of the
     specification.

FWIW I loathe this use of SHALL -- MUST is more direct and obvious.

Anyway, clearly it would be best if improvements can be made to error
handling without requiring both ends to change.

Chris