Re: [Idr] Working group adoption call for draft-snijders-idr-deprecate-30-31-129

Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> Tue, 01 November 2016 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <job@ntt.net>
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 C680C12955C for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:12:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.432
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 4qgTfQFouqj9 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:12:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.dllstx09.us.to.gin.ntt.net (mail3.dllstx09.us.to.gin.ntt.net [IPv6:2001:418:3ff:5::26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA4D8129527 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:12:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail3.dllstx09.us.to.gin.ntt.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <job@ntt.net>) id 1c1Znk-000FlA-4S (job@us.ntt.net); Tue, 01 Nov 2016 14:12:32 +0000
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:12:29 +0100
From: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Message-ID: <20161101141229.GK1589@hanna.meerval.net>
References: <169A4C1A-302E-4FE0-841A-ADA63E812E1F@juniper.net> <20161101133240.GK1581@hanna.meerval.net> <CA+b+ERnh8MMDgCoviLDRvOxbOky=8pBtHC8Z-WCQr6xFF_ZzGQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERnh8MMDgCoviLDRvOxbOky=8pBtHC8Z-WCQr6xFF_ZzGQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/k1FxQbiYtFe306LX5Dc3kFVSdRk>
Cc: IETF IDR Working Group <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Working group adoption call for draft-snijders-idr-deprecate-30-31-129
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: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 14:12:34 -0000

On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 03:02:37PM +0100, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Have you consider marking those codepoints as "RESERVED" rather then
> "DEPRECIATED".

"DEPRECIATED" is an IANA attribute state I am not familiar with, I
assume you mean "deprecated"? :)

> Reason being that if any of the applications they have been squatted
> on behalf of want to use them - it would be pretty easy to allocate
> them.
> 
> The other alternative would be to allocate them to those applications
> now (for which the drafts exist) as IANA early allocations. If you
> depreciate them now and we know that as example Contrail Multicast is
> important either your draft will need to quickly be moved to historic
> or yet another types will need to be allocated again.

That is not how the process works. An implementor should not be rewarded
with the possibility of laziness after they squat on a codepoint.
"Laziness" being that they don't have to renumber, and that they didnt
have to go through the normal process to obtain the codepoint.

I argue that we cannot tolerate: "I'll just take this one, IANA will
give it to me anyway later on if the product becomes popular"

Also, the 'deprecate' draft (if published) would be "updated", not moved
to historic. Only when all six proposed squatted points are returned to
the "unassigned" pool the document can be declared historic.

> In any of the above Large Communities will get virgin BGP attribute
> type which I believe is the main point here.

No, the main point is to prevent another deployment issue like Large BGP
Communities suffered. Large BGP Communities has been resolved now (after
considerable effort I might add).

This document protects innocent bystanders from being assigned
undeployable tainted codepoints.

Kind regards,

Job