Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-10.txt (6/4 to 6/18) - WG LC completed, awaiting -12.txt

Brian,

I don't feel it's good to add any limitations aka stripping. Roles are
negotiated, that is their main idea.
And we already have an allocation policy for future roles:

   The allocation policy for new entries up to and including
>    value 127 is "Expert Review" [RFC5226].  The allocation policy for
>    values 128 through 251 is "First Come First Served".  The values from
>    252 through 255 are for "Experimental Use".

пн, 6 июл. 2020 г. в 22:49, Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>:

>
>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 11:24 AM Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)
> <kotikalapudi.sriram=40nist.gov@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Gyan,
>>
>> You wrote:
>> "In the context of keeping the door open for future internal roles as the
>> reader would be confused when reading “any” meaning iBGP, however internal
>> roles don’t exist today.  My recommendation would be to update the draft
>> to
>> say “any” when the internal roles are explicitly defined.  That could be
>> done anytime when you have fully vetted the internal role concept and the
>> draft is updated accordingly."
>>
>> Would the following substitution take care of your concern?
>>
>> Current text: BGP Role is a new configuration option that can
>> be configured on any BGP session.
>>
>> New text: This document specifies a new configuration option
>> BGP Role that is intended to be used with eBGP.
>> However, in the future, the applicability of BGP Role
>> can be extended to iBGP when suitable internal roles are defined.
>>
>>
> As an alternative, maybe change the text so that it references an IANA
> table, and have the new table introduced via the IANA Actions section, with
> particulars about how new table entries get added?
> Allow for private roles as well as new standard roles, with details on
> what to do with private roles (if private roles are defined/allowed), e.g.
> strip or substitute on announcement via eBGP.
> Or just have the well-defined roles table only, and require standards
> action to add table entries with reference to RFCs in the table.
>
> Brian
>
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Sriram
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idr mailing list
>> Idr@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>

-- 
Best regards,
Alexander Azimov