IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] One week extension to WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-large-community

heasley <heas@shrubbery.net> Wed, 16 November 2016 08:16 UTC

Return-Path: <heas@shrubbery.net>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17594129693 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:16:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RA0FhQUG7q5J for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:16:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from guelah.shrubbery.net (guelah.shrubbery.net [198.58.5.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2FCD12968A for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:16:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by guelah.shrubbery.net (Postfix, from userid 7053) id 94FAC5E2E7; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:16:23 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:16:23 +0000
From: heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>
To: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>
Message-ID: <20161116081623.GA17479@shrubbery.net>
References: <FDA477F5-0F7A-449B-9C3F-7453FE8CB716@juniper.net> <C7D1A165-A9E5-4C9D-BC8F-1F5BB14C192F@juniper.net> <27701_1479159582_582A2F1E_27701_6903_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A1EC77FE1@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <736EA2CC-3DD1-4F14-96ED-2916E62F6F02@cisco.com> <26709_1479217575_582B11A7_26709_12999_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A1EC79584@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CA+b+ER=SEcEFW4OxMx8qTxjpu1eyzKFH0TxshsoTS3oz6MvFBw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH1iCipLcODmZVGRRmaC-n=dHvSAALeZSifimf0FHvhNxY8_rQ@mail.gmail.com> <20161116001246.GB27230@pfrc.org> <4EB6222D-86A4-4A83-AF8C-364CB52B8422@juniper.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4EB6222D-86A4-4A83-AF8C-364CB52B8422@juniper.net>
X-PGPkey: http://www.shrubbery.net/~heas/public-key.asc
X-note: live free, or die!
X-homer: i just want to have a beer while i am caring.
X-Claimation: an engineer needs a manager like a fish needs a bicycle
X-reality: only YOU can put an end to the embarrassment that is Tom Cruise
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/o639KkZp9pM_rOn-g9WyvG6YnnY>
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] One week extension to WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-large-community
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:16:25 -0000

Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 01:01:03PM +0900, John G. Scudder:
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> After Bruno's comments regarding RFC 7606 style error handling being invoked to react to duplicate community values, a few people have expressed (on and off list) concern that even though that is not intended, the -08 text as written could possibly be misinterpreted by a zealous implementor. To resolve this, I propose adding the following, or similar, to the Error Handling section:
> 
> o A BGP Large Communities attribute SHALL NOT be considered malformed due 
>   solely to presence of duplicate community values. Such duplicates MUST be handled 
>   by removing them as specified in Section 2.
> 
> IMO this clarifies the intent of the document and doesn't represent a normative change. Hopefully it will resolve the concerns of those who were concerned about and opposed to 7606-style handling for duplicates.

I do not understand why this is necessary.  -08 already indicates that
duplicates should be silently ignored.  And, nothing in section 6 implies
that it would be considered an error.

I dont object, but i do think this is redundant and unnecessary.

> The authors have indicated they'll incorporate the text in an -09 (assuming of course that the consensus of the WGLC doesn't go against the change).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> --John
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email