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

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 20 April 2017 02:56 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C559F12EAF5 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:56:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4jrMNxkh1jBw for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x242.google.com (mail-io0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF8FD12EAF4 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x242.google.com with SMTP id x86so10845513ioe.3 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=u2LM+c/1YjKCaU6C62FcRePcNA/x7SDaeyiOOso9eWU=; b=f++iNHKG0SehJVlx3YiREHCe4ys/2xva4qTtrsVZoZVR0d4+22Lv6aw9lJzdkWBarx NNpFJK8M214Y9emZx1SaQUoTWtr3HssAI+gW5dpTcK++MqBEW/62xerlTQvUfCUzWg6p bG0W6EppcdACr9Qly4gta9h6wgjyNwuNF/61DnDiP8B78KF0XK6NUeroMIOa2E0w+qfj 1pbvjxQC7gpMhB500YmF5VqVrxYPCM3CVh4yL1efN8fhhxqUs35T2srJw0sm0iHiianw iFNAxRA+WHUpUcGt0Nkmbu0vjSrEOR4NX60BZ5YMVaXCBH+zi901NqXcCWyjdPGnqSCK yPsw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=u2LM+c/1YjKCaU6C62FcRePcNA/x7SDaeyiOOso9eWU=; b=rgeTpRwWmkJJZ4+28PXvNNWtFe1I3eJpGtvzEzUD0H7l31Y/Ki8St/d0XDq+cwZe3V v3OJhuIL/r0t81VEnx6Y+G+qSxnQEySMKvbIYOJl1dxTSmwEXRuPerz6r+D+MUmRGQoC HuIPX56J7iWEo3I0FbUz2euDHrU9pA5mBdAnRgotGd4B38YAWu7m8r/z6UE2P+fx9ZFa Q1Wmtq/NCtp3/pksqg85LAYWTwaMhgZGkDPFMr/iSQkILR7kD5yiDvv5+3vfxoPCCGat ofwShveBMJbXYF3HarehQpXpUG19g7k9r/9ppU6DaO7KZ+pYsS9k4cUWgU23uCDaNgZq DBfA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7pb8dPQgnXUI29prL3Z/3Ser+CkTLs5tTG0RWUI7td1uoDlOPV w73F4s8ihafDKA==
X-Received: by 10.99.149.16 with SMTP id p16mr5885754pgd.112.1492656993244; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.178.77.48] ([192.55.54.60]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x9sm6841518pff.98.2017.04.19.19.56.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14E304)
In-Reply-To: <abe393d3-d1e4-7841-4620-38dab751765b@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:56:30 -0700
Cc: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>, idr@ietf.org, Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B465B3A2-7538-45D5-8B27-A2B645C36C19@gmail.com>
References: <D4E812E8-AA7B-4EA2-A0AC-034AA8922306@juniper.net> <abe393d3-d1e4-7841-4620-38dab751765b@cisco.com>
To: Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/dIKMo7Qi6Odc2QRXT741t4Lv4Ao>
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-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:56:36 -0000

+1 Enke!
Net every network engineer (unfortunately) follows IETF (or reads release notes), not every vendor clearly explains default behavior changes..

Regards,
Jeff

> On Apr 19, 2017, at 15:53, Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>; wrote:
> 
> Hi, Folks:
> 
> The document defines or changes the "default behavior" for EBGP.  However, the default
> behavior for a particular code base or release was set long time ago, and in some cases
> more than 20 years ago. To avoid breaking existing deployment in this case, the default
> behavior in the code can not be changed (with or without this document). Then it becomes
> a deployment practice for the policies to be configured.
> 
> So it seems to me that "Standard Track" may not be the right classification for this
> document.  "Deployment recommendation or Practice" might be more appropriate.
> 
> Thanks.  -- Enke
> 
>> On 4/19/17 9:49 AM, John G. Scudder wrote:
>> IDR folks,
>> 
>> As many of you have already noticed, draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05 has completed GROW WGLC and is now in IETF LC.
>> 
>> As nobody other than Alvaro noticed (thank you for noticing, Alvaro!) draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05 represents an update to RFC 4271, in that it mandates what a BGP implementation MUST do. See section 2 of the draft for the details. It's short and easy to read.
>> 
>> If we had noticed this earlier, we would have either chosen to home the document in IDR, or explicitly made an exception to have GROW do the work. Given that we didn't, though, the plan is to continue progressing the draft as a GROW document. However:
>> 
>> - As I understand it, the authors will add the Updates: 4271 header in addition to potentially taking in other comments from AD review.
>> - If anyone has a strong objection to the unusual procedure, please say so (either on-list, or to the chairs + AD).
>> - Please send any last call comments to the IETF LC (see below) although it's also OK to discuss here on the IDR list of course.
>> 
>> Many IDR participants are also active in GROW and have had their say, but if you haven't, now's your chance.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> --John
>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>> From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>;
>>> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05.txt> (Default EBGP Route Propagation Behavior Without Policies) to Proposed Standard
>>> Date: April 18, 2017 at 5:16:05 PM EDT
>>> To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>;
>>> Cc: grow-chairs@ietf.org, grow@ietf.org, draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject@ietf.org, christopher.morrow@gmail.com
>>> Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG
>>> (grow) to consider the following document:
>>> - 'Default EBGP Route Propagation Behavior Without Policies'
>>> <draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-05.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
>>> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-05-02. Exceptionally, comments may be
>>> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
>>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>> 
>>> Abstract
>>> 
>>> This document defines the default behavior of a BGP speaker when
>>> there is no import or export policy associated with an External BGP
>>> session.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The file can be obtained via
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject/
>>> 
>>> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject/ballot/
>>> 
>>> This IETF LC, which originally concluded on 2017-04-18, is being 
>>> extended to allow for additional input to be provided. Ops AD (for GROW) 
>>> and Routing AD (for IDR) wish to ensure that cross WG discussions have 
>>> had a chance to occur.
>>> 
>>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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