Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-large-community-04.txt

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Tue, 25 October 2016 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.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 3B97B1299CD for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 13:22:20 -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 RdnNflCJg_gW for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 13:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3BB21299BE for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 13:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id E91251E337; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 16:24:38 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 16:24:38 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <20161025202438.GA23262@pfrc.org>
References: <EF5BD8D1-AD17-4305-A5B8-D777C8C00F2D@uk.clara.net> <47bd6edaf74a40dfaa474eba7b043c5f@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <47bd6edaf74a40dfaa474eba7b043c5f@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/otwkwmjAgDvsjpQ9VTZ5_ZlLdO0>
Cc: Jeff Haas <jhaas@juniper.net>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, David Freedman <david.freedman@uk.clara.net>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-large-community-04.txt
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: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 20:22:20 -0000

Jakob,

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 07:47:57PM +0000, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) wrote:
> We added that as a result of Jeff Haas's email attached.
> 
> It actually makes sense.
> However, if we want to keep parity with https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7606#section-7.8
> it's no big deal for me.
> 
> Jeff?

Dave's point on specs is, as usual, right on.  And I think it's generally
reasonable to default to 7606 behaviors.  (Which would be one or more.)

My disagreement is more a disagreement with 7606's zero-length behaviors
with respect to (extended-)communities and the zero length behavior.  In
that spec, it's a syntax error to receive a length 0 attribute and, as such,
you should treat-as-withdraw.

However, that seems to contradict the general intent of the spec which is to
do error handling behaviors better.  Since 0 is semantically clear (no
comms), stripping the attribute and continuing seems to be somewhat more
graceful than treat-as-withdraw.  

That said, 7606 reflects WG consensus.  It seems wise to keep parity with
it.

-- Jeff