IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt (10/17/2016 to 10/31/2016)

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Thu, 20 October 2016 14:04 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@pfrc.org>
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 0C511129452 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 07:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.332
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 bDbOg0YXH99a for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 07:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA58812952C for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 07:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dresden.attlocal.net (99-59-193-67.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [99.59.193.67]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D89BA1E1F0; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:07:04 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_90476230-EC09-426B-910A-DA1B1AE8B139"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.0 \(3226\))
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <2588_1476970728_5808C8E8_2588_648_1_9ab4dc04-d856-449d-b978-8ea1960a25d1@OPEXCLILMA1.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:04:52 -0400
Message-Id: <83759244-B42B-48E1-AC5A-E6289D9F66EA@pfrc.org>
References: <01f301d228b4$e3319ef0$a994dcd0$@ndzh.com> <20161017215134.GA464@pfrc.org> <20161018190851.GC15392@shrubbery.net> <20161018191521.GT95811@Vurt.local> <9EFC9BAA-F917-4C70-A139-1F69CAECF9C0@pfrc.org> <007201d229f6$b4ae9680$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <20161019185405.GA12214@puck.nether.net> <01ab01d22ab2$2b54f8e0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <515_1476964767_5808B19F_515_1079_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A0FA0799F@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20161020131349.GL1033@Vurt.local> <10701_1476970482_5808C7F2_10701_5009_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A0FA07C6E@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <2588_1476970728_5808C8E8_2588_648_1_9ab4dc04-d856-449d-b978-8ea1960a25d1@OPEXCLILMA1.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
To: bruno.decraene@orange.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3226)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/gDC-KUjE-ez2hVR0OSbsN80K2cg>
Cc: IETF IDR WG <idr@ietf.org>, Sue Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt (10/17/2016 to 10/31/2016)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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 Oct 2016 14:04:58 -0000

> On Oct 20, 2016, at 9:38 AM, bruno.decraene@orange.com wrote:
> 
> Correction (sorry for the spam)
> 
>> making it clear in the document that
>> the community space starting with NNNN: "belongs" or is "assigned" by AS NNNN.
> 
> that AS NNNN, owns/control the assignment of the community space starting with NNNN:
> 
> (Such correction is expected to handle cases where NNNN is not an assigned AS number. e.g. 0000. )

For some very light definition of "own".  

For example, if I really like Job's 2914 community road-show, and just copied and pasted his community configs directly, 2914:* would work fine for me.  But I certainly shouldn't expect that the communities would survive getting to me through 2914.

The above comments aren't intended to recommend any specific change of text, but merely to point out that getting too hung up on RFC 2119 semantics is probably counter productive.

-- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email