IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Wed, 19 October 2016 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@pfrc.org>
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 4A08812949F for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.333
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, 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 talGfDnvsrwu for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C519A129642 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dresden.attlocal.net (99-59-193-67.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [99.59.193.67]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B34B1E1F0; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:33:45 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.0 \(3226\))
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <5807F3AF.9080200@foobar.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:31:33 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F4CB6984-6C14-4FC4-AEE4-02F69B2C9457@pfrc.org>
References: <01f301d228b4$e3319ef0$a994dcd0$@ndzh.com> <20161017215134.GA464@pfrc.org> <20161018190851.GC15392@shrubbery.net> <20161018191521.GT95811@Vurt.local> <9EFC9BAA-F917-4C70-A139-1F69CAECF9C0@pfrc.org> <007201d229f6$b4ae9680$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <20161019185405.GA12214@puck.nether.net> <CAH1iCirF_1ODLtLzeVhKmQPDeeGcczcQCSPXDcro=OQv2ipR3A@mail.gmail.com> <5807F3AF.9080200@foobar.org>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3226)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/oCZ_IvBbGpftPSBPkdxZdUvpUjg>
Cc: IETF IDR WG <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt (10/17/2016 to 10/31/2016)
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, 19 Oct 2016 22:31:38 -0000

> On Oct 19, 2016, at 6:29 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> 
> Brian Dickson wrote:
>> "Global Administrator:  A four-octet namespace identifier.  This MUST be
>> an Autonomous System Number.
> [...]
>>   Implementations MUST allow the operator to specify any value for the
>>   Global Administrator field. Implementors MUST NOT restrict permitted values
>>   of ASN
> 
> so summarising:
> 
> - operators: you MUST use an ASN
> - implementers: you MUST allow any value
> 
> I'm really not convinced that it's good protocol definition practice to
> state one set of rules for implementers and another for operators, where
> the two sets of rules are not actually compatible with each other.

I think this is nicely stated.

As recently noted, the operator proscription is an operational consideration.  In that context, it's fine.  And simply moving it to an operational considerations section may close this discussion.

-- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email