Re: [Idr] draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm-05.txt - WG Adoption and IPR call (9/27 to 10/11/2022)

>  I did search the BGP protocol RFC and was struck by its absence except
for the one RFC I mentioned.

Well there is also rfc6198, rfc1745, rfc4798, rfc4216, rfc5152 etc ...

Thank you,
R.

On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 5:33 PM tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:

> From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
> Sent: 29 September 2022 16:29
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> > Is the term ASBR well-understood in the context of BGP
>
> It is a very well known term and widely used across many documents in the
> context of BGP protocol. Sometimes you will see folks abbreviating it to
> "BR", but the BGP speaker which talks EBGP is almost always called
> Autonomous System Border Router (I used word "almost" as there is an
> exception - confederations).
>
> Robert
> Thanks for that.  If the author used EBGP, I would have known what he
> meant!  I did search the BGP protocol RFC and was struck by its absence
> except for the one RFC I mentioned.  In OSPF it is well defined and I would
> not have commented on it.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> Thx,
> Robert.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 10:23 AM tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com<mailto:
> ietfc@btconnect.com>> wrote:
> From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf
> of Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>>
> Sent: 27 September 2022 18:30
>
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption and IPR call for
> draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm-05.txt.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm/
>
> <tp>
> The protocol depends in part on whether or not a router is an ASBR.  I am
> used to seeing that term used in the context of OSPF and not of BGP.  I did
> find a usage in RFC7705 but note that that RFC felt it necessary to explain
> what an ASBR was.  Is the term ASBR well-understood in the context of BGP
> (as opposed to OSPF)?
>
> I find the IANA Considerations imprecise.  It asks for a new sub-type in a
> registry whose name is not present in IANA; there is one that is close (but
> no cigar).
>
> Likewise, it talks of 'registry of the "BGP Extended Communities"
> registry'.  This is wrong on two counts.  A registry is part of a registry
> group, not part of a registry (prior to recent discussions on the Last Call
> list I would have just said 'group').  Second, there are no BGP registry
> groups and that identifier does not appear anywhere on the IANA website
> AFAICT.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> The authors should respond to this email with an IPR statement.
>
> The WG should consider in their discussion:
> 1) Will this new  transitive extended community help
> in operational networks?
>
> 2) What conflicts does this new Extended Community have
> with other functions in general BGP route distribution or
> VPNs (EVPN, IPVPN)?
>
> 3) do you have any concern about the text in the draft?
>
> Cheerily, Sue
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org<mailto:Idr@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>