Re: [Idr] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jakob,
> There is no need to change the text.
>
> The attribute is in fact suitable for use with four-octet ASNs.
> Since all ASNs can be represented in 4 octets, there is no problem.
And the document lacks this link to RFC6793 as I mentioned in my initial 
DISCUSS, most probably because it's so obvious to you guys in your 
community.
My reasoning has been:
     either you mention that two-octet ASN can be represented in 
four-octets (RFC6793)
     or you mention: suitable for all ASNs (2 or 4)

Ok, it seems that we're going in circle here.
You guys understood my issue. It was DISCUSSed. I believe the draft 
should be clearer, but this is not DISCUSS-level point any longer.
Moving to a COMMENT, and trusting the responsible shepherd and AD.

For the record, John's proposal solved the issue.

    OLD:
        The attribute is suitable for use with four-octet
        Autonomous System Numbers

    NEW:
        The attribute is suitable for use with all Autonomous System Numbers including four-octet
        Autonomous System Numbers


Regards, Benoit
>
> Thanks,
> Jakob.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John G. Scudder [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 11:51 AM
>> To: Benoit Claise (bclaise) <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Job Snijders <[e-mail]>; Ignas Bagdonas <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>; draft-ietf-idr-
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>>
>> Benoit,
>>
>> I think the wording is accurate as written, but I see your point. I think your suggested wording is terse to a fault
>> since it abandons the important "this will work with your four-byte ASN" information. IMO a change is not strictly
>> needed, but if one is desired how about something like this?
>>
>> OLD:
>>     The attribute is suitable for use with four-octet
>>     Autonomous System Numbers
>>
>> NEW:
>>     The attribute is suitable for use with all Autonomous System Numbers including four-octet
>>     Autonomous System Numbers
>>
>> Or a lawyer would probably say :-)
>>     The attribute is suitable for use with, inter alia, four-octet
>>     Autonomous System Numbers
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -John
>>
>>> On Jan 4, 2017, at 1:43 PM, Benoit Claise <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Job,
>>>
>>> So basically, you're telling me: "The attribute is suitable for use with ASNs.", right?
>>> Is this what needs to be in the abstract?
>>>
>>> Regards, B.
>>>> Hi Benoit,
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 04:39:25PM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote:
>>>>>> Global Administrator field is a 4 octet integer that is used to carry AS
>>>>>> number but it is not mandatory to interpret it as an AS number only
>>>>>> (while a typical use case is for carrying AS number) - two peers can
>>>>>> agree on any value that has meaning between those peers. Representation
>>>>>> on the wire is in network byte order, and 2 byte AS number will get
>>>>>> naturally padded with two zero bytes in front. Virtually all deployments
>>>>>> today are AS4 capable and use AS4 encoding even for AS number values
>>>>>> that fit into 16 bit value range therefore AS number is a 4 octet entity
>>>>>> already.
>>>>> Then this sentence in the abstract "The attribute is suitable for use
>>>>> with four-octet ASNs." is misleading, right? At least to me. The
>>>>> attribute is suitable for four-octets ASNs and two-octets ASNs encoded
>>>>> in four-octets. This would be more in line with "This field SHOULD be
>>>>> an Autonomous System Number (ASN)" later on.
>>>> I am under the impression that nowadays the IETF community considers all
>>>> ASNs to be four-octet ASNs, however, some of those ASNs can be encoded
>>>> as a two octet value. The Large Communities specification is suitable
>>>> for usage in Autonomous Systems from all walks of life, where as rfc1997
>>>> communities are unsuitable for all ASNs, specifically those ASNs which
>>>> cannot be encoded as two-octet values.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Job
>>>> .
>>>>
> .
>