Re: [Idr] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-06: (with DISCUSS)

Ben: 

Is next step is for us to propose some text?  

Sue 
-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 11:13 AM
To: George, Wes
Cc: idr@ietf.org; idr-chairs@ietf.org; The IESG;
draft-ietf-idr-as-migration@ietf.org; shares@ndzh.com
Subject: Re: [Idr] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-06:
(with DISCUSS)

On 18 Sep 2015, at 9:16, George, Wes wrote:

> Though I do not want to see this document delayed any more, I would 
> actually prefer not to change the introduction unless WG consensus 
> changes. This was DISCUSSed (and discussed) during evaluation of -03, 
> and this was my response to Pete at the time:
>
> "This one is a little bit of a grey area. It doesn't strictly require 
> interoperability, because its functionality is local to a given BGP 
> speaker. It doesn't make changes to the BGP Protocol per se but it 
> does describe the current behavior of something implemented in 
> multiple vendor-specific methods so that desired behavior is 
> documented for future implementers. While it is optional, it does 
> modify BGP's behavior from the strict interpretation of the relevant 
> RFCs, and that could technically be considered a protocol change. 
> Since it was a question as to which status (PS vs info) was 
> appropriate, we solicited WG consensus, and PS was the recommendation.
> Some of the language used is to reflect the intent to codify existing 
> behavior so that as future changes to BGP are contemplated (most 
> notably, BGPSec), this is considered part of the protocol so that it 
> doesn't get "broken"."
>
> The abstract and intro attempt to acknowledge this fact. I'm open to 
> suggestions on wording changes to make it clearer, but I do think that 
> the text that is there is useful and should not be removed altogether.

I don't necessarily object to a PS that, for example, doesn't impact
interoperability. It's just that the first paragraph as written feels like
an explanation of why something _wouldn't_ be a PS. So even adding few
sentences explaining why the working group wants this to be standards track
in spite of that would be helpful, even if you otherwise keep the existing
text.

Part of my concern is that lots of readers ignore headings and boilerplate.
So if the body text seems to lead down a path that is different from what is
said in the headings and boilerplate, at least some readers will
misunderstand.

Thanks!

Ben.

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr