Re: [Idr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-11: (with COMMENT)

Nick Hilliard <> Tue, 14 June 2016 10:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 265B112D18F for <>; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 03:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id povNTDtpl4eo for <>; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 03:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C663E12D162 for <>; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 03:15:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from crumpet.local ( [] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u5EAFhZI092979 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:15:44 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.local
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:15:42 +0100
From: Nick Hilliard <>
User-Agent: Postbox 4.0.8 (Macintosh/20151105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christopher Morrow <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: " List" <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-ie?= =?utf-8?q?tf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-11=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:15:50 -0000

Christopher Morrow wrote:
> err, maybe nick was thinking there might be more revisions on his
> text options?

something like that.  Who was it who said that dealing with the IETF is
like being nibbled to death by ducks?

> I'm not a native bgp speaker, but I'd question (for instance) the use
> of 'AS_PATH segment' in this part of the draft, given:

> ​again, I'm not a native bgp speaker

No, you're correct.

> so I'm probably off base, but... maybe there's a revision in the
> revision still to be had before updating the actual draft archive?​

That would probably be tempting fate but then again, the reason the IETF
exists at all is because fate was tempted.  It would be a shame to lose
that spark.

Randy Bush wrote:
> i think what might be said is "creating an undesirably longer AS_PATH"
> and thus biasing receivers against using the exchange.

"creating an undesirably longer AS_PATH" works, but "biasing receivers
against using the exchange" is language that I would prefer to avoid,
the reason being that route servers have an expected behaviour which is
to provide a comparable topology view to bilateral peering.  In this
regard, jamming the RS ASN into the path violates the principal of least
astonishment.  The art is to distil this sentiment into a single sentence.

The wording has been updated as follows:

Is there consensus on this wording?  If so I'll post -12.