Re: [Idr] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-06: (with DISCUSS)

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Ben and Jeff: 

The purpose behind this draft is to document things that we needed to
document things in the BGP protocol that SIDR's WG work was modify.   So the
phrase Ben suggests is the key reason. 

"Additionally, this document makes changes to the standard protocol behavior
during a migration". 

However, I believe this text is what the following statement says. 

The text: 

   This draft discusses some existing commonly-used BGP mechanisms for
   Autonomous System Number (ASN) migration that are not formally part
   of the BGP4 [RFC4271] protocol specification.

Ben - can you let me know why this text is not sufficient? 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 6:19 PM
To: Jeffrey Haas
Cc: Susan Hares; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; The IESG;
[e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-06:
(with DISCUSS)

On 29 Sep 2015, at 17:13, Jeffrey Haas wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 04:27:46PM -0500, Ben Campbell wrote:
>
>> So I'm confused again. That sounds like an argument for an 
>> informational RFC, or maybe even a BCP.
>
>
> IMO, the status is *fine* and is really the best mapping we're going 
> to get.
> There is one part practice, one part deployment wisdom and - the thing 
> being truly documented - the behavior changes done in the protocol 
> within the AS undergoing migration.
>
> The alternative is to ask for a status of "this is weird and doesn't 
> really fit".

So I think maybe the problem is that part of the draft defines standards and
part doesn't. Short of splitting them (which I don't think makes sense this
late in the process, one way of fixing the issue would be to change or add
text to paragraph 1 in the introduction to say something to the effect of
"Additionally, this document makes changes to the standard protocol behavior
during a migration".