Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt (10/17/2016 to 10/31/2016)

[Paul Jakma <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, i3D.net - Martijn Schmidt wrote:

> Summarizing, any restrictions which can not be enforced don't belong 
> in the IDR document because they're irrelevant to implementors. 
> Arguing about it doesn't change the fact that such recommendations 
> belong in a BCP/GROW document. It is that simple.

Syntax can be in the protocol, without per se strictly enforcing the 
semantics - which could be defined elsewhere. A protocol document can 
say some 4-byte data is of type "IPv4 address" and another "ASN" without 
having to get into what that means - specifying how the type and data 
are encoded, while leaving the higher level semantics of the type(s) to 
other documents.

If we're going to encode a bunch of different typed things into a field, 
we might as well as provide a syntax for encoding type information into 
the field - at least for the obvious types of data we are _certain_ will 
be put in there. One of the types might well be "opaque data". ;)

m.v.g / regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma | [e-mail] | @pjakma | Key ID: 0xD86BF79464A2FF6A
Fortune:
No wonder you're tired!  You understood so much today.