Re: [Idr] Routing Directorate Review for draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-07 - BGP Community Container

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Acee,

Ok I was not really clear on your comment if it applies to entire diff or
just to the part of "ignoring" elements. Was just trying to show that the
-08 diff shows lots of changes :)

Anyhow to your point. First let's observe that use of any BGP Community is
advisory. We have no mechanism in BGP to force to apply any action on BGP
speaker when receiving given extended, large or wide community. For
standard well-knows there is exception that they will be obeyed but this is
an exception here.

With that being said as Jeff mentioned semantics if target is to match any
so if one implementation does not recognize  one atom type yet can
successfully parse entire community there is no reason why applying partial
match of ANY form would be worse then not applying it at all. That is in
context of Sub-Type 1 section 4.4.1

I am discussing with co-authors if the same applies to 4.4.2 as currently
written. Especially in the light of section 8.2 which stands in contrast to
4.4.2.

On the topic of ignoring entire community section 4.4.3 provides such
example - when parameter is not recognized or not being able to be
correctly parsed.

 For treat as withdraw section 8.1 provides a description. In general when
we can not parse the attribute it should undergo procedures as described in
RFC7606 section 7.14

Many thx,
R.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 2:17 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Robert, Jeff,
>
>
>
> *From: *Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Monday, July 11, 2022 at 8:09 AM
> *To: *Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *Jeff Haas <[e-mail]>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=
> [e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> <[e-mail]>, IDR List <[e-mail]>,
> Routing Directorate <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Idr] Routing Directorate Review for
> draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-07 - BGP Community Container
>
>
>
> Hi Acee,
>
>
>
>     Otherwise, we can resume comments vs. the published -08 on Monday.
>
> I'm looking at the version just published - I'm missing any changes here
> in the diff?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Can you be more specific ? The diff shows all of those changes made.
>
>
>
> This why I hate when people who prune my Emails beyond comprehension…. I
> mean specifically the changes relative to my comment on undefined atoms vs
> undefined parameters that immediately preceded my response.
>
>
>
>
>     >    2. It wasn't clear to me why undefined Atoms are ignored and the
> BGP Wide Community
>
>     >       is still used. Similarly, undefined parameters result in the
> BGP Wide Community
>
>     >       being ignored. I think the draft should explain impetus for
> the three error actions –
>
>     >       ignore Atom only, ignore  BGP Wide Community, and treat as
> malformed.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
>
> Thx,
>
> R.
>
>
>