Re: [Idr] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-08: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana <> Mon, 04 May 2020 10:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 292333A0788; Mon, 4 May 2020 03:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lYpHaVcbsjFD; Mon, 4 May 2020 03:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::332]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDB513A0795; Mon, 4 May 2020 03:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id x25so7875707wmc.0; Mon, 04 May 2020 03:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CqQZ2BVp6U5kZD/tI1mDo7Hcv+N1B1DQtlh2XJ3p688=; b=DsOulVexTC13J66fOieUfUoluCIenRdExuc8rrD+hsaWMru2hK2N4d//q6mm6Gl9hJ 4DrN2nw8l063daIxzxUopM6hOcj5Q/GwcI5RbJrrVYJpy3S6sNZwz4LCeWqPK2eDla9i uG2q5qZXmqlZpiNZgNkSVJxOSetO+GkV4x08b7Ncg+3tQey3Oc3I0YmHzRav6GyPT0K7 EI5VQz0i4/BTfahanHDUTkiqds16Hia9dbXWW7N7UfqrDAOVtIxhccbl4u+5sSxh+/0A vY+Ovu5POeg754aIGCbXg7+vS97reWejDx/ho2pFtwguMj38jg6kXyK3q8cKi8Rgnzpp Hg2Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CqQZ2BVp6U5kZD/tI1mDo7Hcv+N1B1DQtlh2XJ3p688=; b=fjv6llvwfNG2ZV9w6IPuFvZ90J+1k1bkySn/2nLRfBX6eXfq+VW8k9hz3Edzm3sbrJ X8adzF1Nv9CGk9gx9n26bEqgec9sYuTu5WRHeW5nKz5H/UZvfVaPSwh7Pj7cxYVBNR/e YPooK87hb9YOYkzU45VGGnFmWETW66FQSs+k6/EzkcDUNQTBSEF27bnAQoaxYEwGmM81 fskobMK0D1MJVK5gRUTIEU/rpNrbkhKZFCY2flczA0utMVWur5EqVtX9lhpMgiLicaXQ gDze+2YOvpBJmgvV+Mov9D21qNNulO/Wdqnf7XCSSMccZV3Yff/L3K+YQwJEnwIePu/R QO+w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuaVAW8uyK67fFr54KKRVTva2puh0ychSqBGoVLXGXEpve7j/aFW oE1jw5HnVXNDjEM+2i+Rhs+dTUWwYzWTP140OD3HJV7V
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLzB2VI1B1AHAkPGlyhiN5fXfV/T71+2pC6WZwOc1pfL8UKOnh/SWr9sgIXZ12UzkYIDwsSJmZM16do2dbCsAA=
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c755:: with SMTP id w21mr13565828wmk.120.1588588751964; Mon, 04 May 2020 03:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Mon, 4 May 2020 03:39:10 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 04 May 2020 03:39:10 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <>, The IESG <>, Robert Wilton <>
Cc: Susan Hares <>,,,,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-08: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 May 2020 10:39:15 -0000

On May 4, 2020 at 5:40:34 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:



> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This document is straight forward and easy to read and understand. I had one
> minor comment.
> [RFC5492] designates the range of Capability Codes 128-255 as
> "Reserved for Private Use". Subsequent experience has shown this to
> be not only useless, but actively confusing to implementors.
> It might possibly be helpful to expand this paragraph slightly.
> Because what was once "Reserved for Private Use" is now being reclassified
> to something non private, I presume that there are no BGP implementations
> using these capability codes that could be broken by this reclassification.
> Hence, on the assumption that these codes are not in fact being used for
> private use, it might be helpful to state that in order to help justify why
> it is okay to make this change.

There *are* implementations using the code points on that range.  The
WG has carefully surveyed implementations and is deprecating the known
values (Table 2).