Re: [Idr] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-06: (with DISCUSS)

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Ben: 

In IDR and SIDR, sometimes we are catching up and standardizing what people are doing in the real-world so that when we advance the standard (SIDR is advancing the standard in this case), the whole set of code is interoperable. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 3:38 PM
To: Alvaro Retana
Cc: George, Wes; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; The IESG; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-06: (with DISCUSS)

On 22 Sep 2015, at 13:17, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:

> On 9/18/15, 11:13 AM, "Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Ben:
>
> Hi!
>
>> I don't necessarily object to a PS that, for example, doesn't impact 
>> interoperability. It's just that the first paragraph as written feels 
>> like an explanation of why something _wouldn't_ be a PS. So even 
>> adding few sentences explaining why the working group wants this to 
>> be standards track in spite of that would be helpful, even if you 
>> otherwise keep the existing text.
>
> As Wes explained, a big (if not all) the motivation for the WG to make 
> this document a PS lies in other work that interworks closely with the 
> AS_PATH attribute, which is what is changed in the mechanisms 
> specified here.  Specifically, BGPSec is the major one.
>
> After reading the Introduction again, I find this piece of text that 
> (to
> me) seems to address what you want:
>
>  However, it is necessary to document these de facto standards to  
> ensure that new implementations can be successful, and any future  
> protocol enhancements to BGP that propose to read, copy, manipulate  
> or compare the AS_PATH attribute can do so without inhibiting the use  
> of these very widely used ASN migration mechanisms.

At this point, I think this is strictly an editorial gripe--but that text was part of what made me wonder about the intent. Language like "Document these de facto standards" led me down the "document things people are doing" vs "creating an IETF standard".

>
>
> The only thing that this text doesn¹t explicitly mention is BGPSec.  
> There
> is a companion document that specifically addresses the sidr side:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration
>
> We could add an Informative reference to BGPSec ‹ but with the
> -sidr-
> draft I think we¹re covered.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.