Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-large-community-01.txt

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:49:28PM +0100, t.petch wrote:
> I think that Brian well expressed the issue in a post 15 minutes
> before yours.

No. That posting is proposing new radical ideas about propagation
behaviourisms that are not part of this specification.  A specific
design requirement for -large-, stated by member of the working group is
the simple transitive nature of the attribute. Given the very different
nature of what you and Brian propose, I suspect it might warrant its own
draft.

> My concern starts with the protocol rather than the implementation,
> seeing getting the protocol right as the first step, even if it does
> not seem possible at present for a router to enforce the protocol
> rigidly. I see BGP as a whole as somewhat weak on security, on
> authentication and data integrity, and these things only getting fixed
> after a disaster or two.  So I am content to specify a protocol which
> implementations may or may not catch up with at a later date.

I am not content with a protocol for which there are zero
implementations. Without implementations, there is no standardisation in
IDR.

Based on my experience with RFC 1997 - I feel that you may be
misrepresenting the risk surface. 

Kind regards,

Job