Re: [Idr] Last Call: <draft-ietf-idr-rfc4893bis-06.txt> (BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number Space) to Proposed Standard

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

On 01/06/2012 23:00, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:54:44AM -0700, The IESG wrote:
>> The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to
>> consider the following document:
>> - 'BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number Space'
>>    <draft-ietf-idr-rfc4893bis-06.txt> as Proposed Standard
>>
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>> [e-mail] mailing lists by 2012-06-15. Exceptionally, comments may be
>> sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the
>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>>
>>     The Autonomous System (AS) number is encoded as a two-octet entity in
>>     the base BGP specification. This document describes extensions to BGP
>>     to carry the Autonomous System numbers as four-octet entities.  This
>>     document obsoletes RFC 4893.
>>
> Just for the sake of clarity, OpenBGPD will not do the following:
>
>     In addition, the path segment types AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE and
>     AS_CONFED_SET [RFC5065] MUST NOT be carried in the AS4_PATH attribute
>     of an UPDATE message.  A NEW BGP speaker that receives these path
>     segment types in the AS4_PATH attribute of an UPDATE message from an
>     OLD BGP speaker MUST discard these path segments, adjust the relevant
>     attribute fields accordingly, and continue processing the UPDATE
>     message.  This case SHOULD be logged locally for analysis.
>
> There is no point to do this fiddeling instead we will treat this like any
> other parse error of AS4_PATH.
>

Claudio,

Thank you for your email.

I see no support for a text change to support this observation,
and several emails explaining that original text addresses an
observed problem.

The IETF process in such circumstances is to declare that the proposed
change is in the rough and proceed with the publication.

I will therefore continue with the publication process for the
document as revised to address the other IETF last call comments.

- Stewart