From nobody Thu Apr 22 07:09:15 2021 Return-Path: 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 0C04F3A0CCA; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 07:09:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 PyfeT5P8NLvZ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 07:09:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-il1-x130.google.com (mail-il1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::130]) (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 C606E3A0CC6; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 07:09:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-x130.google.com with SMTP id c15so37971230ilj.1; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 07:09:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rG6ag4PWkGH+MZFYKmNFxJtS8jyn/PsfGvPHiLnxQI0=; b=WzGu9PFnIKZ6Gnr5TYvjCWuffgmT7RWmDnzzmCjzpNmBbZ/l9oSewiT51DSDN48Br+ sWQyeCZQvUmt+99m5b18tmHKXoO1HVFA9blSjhxGsvyPDeK1VuEDu0Uxz2k3vPfOckmA gQJxzscHJhuKZyN4chwD2rAyQPdgoy/sv5LpTvBap3mMAaxiTSxA3liX7/epJdVMCViU Ve1qCSOxsv2T0o9kc9caf0wGdAHvkDrEsEXZc+/ZD5cRkQWE4Hy8P6Q/WfYezXqe3CfP MsQBm5cBRB106c/jFwEi8bYCxI9pPlh0jpt7VDCzKfyWbr6PekVIQj3k9BLDeqZOecVV eIZQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rG6ag4PWkGH+MZFYKmNFxJtS8jyn/PsfGvPHiLnxQI0=; b=OLVRCRWbQekGevC9vHmvq40xTVwxKtFzYMp0in6gBwPCqmj/bDYGfz/hvhovwrW2Ii /RSBcaAHTICon8euyuMa/pJmyKw4iHZWW9g+5EEDjUzakGt6jVr9jRuRg3Uzf6mmDItb ttTRZiNG8WFp+RJpPTlaOHX6P734oXs7aIrtNhWTEHEa2sDizDFljKEdfIMXk0QsIe/Q m3VrWhZ28kFF1MFWGOIjkPFMUEaDwskDsNBDZCLZmEB9wWWQB78A5T1i5ykXCjDDP7IW Q4xF5DC7Vz9Crhwwz0/q2QxsfU7D73PO0xApB88Ok7ZFi6xS1/K6RfICgdj5KYcGHeIH krLQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5314loQUaACTvqfm5DJuXkKY/iyM1rTaHcSdAPFrNwo29uhRzyk9 3F7RN+wwxoM+arHwldpyiO9iCq6mDWudovmKJX8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx7Exubfzi6Ag6l5LcgSGOGtuOcbI59ewdDEa2ZGH3PfrfBW6zS9fVpcWG0Yj/iKriTP+bL1P4vd2tFfncx5yI= X-Received: by 2002:a92:da4b:: with SMTP id p11mr2887087ilq.249.1619100545269; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 07:09:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <161902677084.21894.2107273327558213751@ietfa.amsl.com> <7B788CBF-A53A-4C0E-AE0C-C5C3AA91FC1D@juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <7B788CBF-A53A-4C0E-AE0C-C5C3AA91FC1D@juniper.net> From: Martin Duke Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 07:08:58 -0700 Message-ID: To: John Scudder Cc: The IESG , "draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param@ietf.org" , "idr-chairs@ietf.org" , "idr@ietf. org" , Hares Susan , "aretana.ietf@gmail.com" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000db44d505c0903834" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Idr] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-11: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 14:09:13 -0000 --000000000000db44d505c0903834 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Like I said, there are two reasons not to I can think of: - To test support of this option on hosts across the internet - To encourage hosts to handle it properly. On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 2:57 PM John Scudder wrote: > Hi Martin, > > > On Apr 21, 2021, at 1:39 PM, Martin Duke via Datatracker < > noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > ... > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > I agree with Rob. Though not at all an expert on BGP, I think that if > BGP nodes > > MUST NOT use the new encoding for smaller parameter sets, that is going > to make > > it harder to test for the capability on the internet and reduce the > incentives > > to support this specification. I would suggest that instead they SHOULD > use the > > RFC4271 encoding, possibly discussing the reasons one might not. > > As I mentioned in my reply to Rob, I actually can=E2=80=99t think of a go= od reason > for them not to, which is why it=E2=80=99s a MUST; as I mentioned in my r= eply to > Warren, the reason to consume the new format nonetheless (other than > Postel=E2=80=99s Law) is to enable potential future deprecation of the ol= d format > (yes, I=E2=80=99m an optimist). > > =E2=80=94John --000000000000db44d505c0903834 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Like I said, there are two reasons not to I can think= of:
- To test support of this option on hosts across the interne= t
- To encourage hosts to handle it properly.

=
On Wed, Ap= r 21, 2021 at 2:57 PM John Scudder <j= gs@juniper.net> wrote:
Hi Martin,

> On Apr 21, 2021, at 1:39 PM, Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wro= te:
...
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------=
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------=
>
> I agree with Rob. Though not at all an expert on BGP, I think that if = BGP nodes
> MUST NOT use the new encoding for smaller parameter sets, that is goin= g to make
> it harder to test for the capability on the internet and reduce the in= centives
> to support this specification. I would suggest that instead they SHOUL= D use the
> RFC4271 encoding, possibly discussing the reasons one might not.

As I mentioned in my reply to Rob, I actually can=E2=80=99t think of a good= reason for them not to, which is why it=E2=80=99s a MUST; as I mentioned i= n my reply to Warren, the reason to consume the new format nonetheless (oth= er than Postel=E2=80=99s Law) is to enable potential future deprecation of = the old format (yes, I=E2=80=99m an optimist).

=E2=80=94John
--000000000000db44d505c0903834--