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

marco@lamehost.it Mon, 24 October 2016 17:50 UTC

Return-Path: <marco@lamehost.it>
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 0687C12987B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:50:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.332
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, 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 V6n1ckbKcLuX for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from seele.lamehost.it (seele.lamehost.it [80.76.80.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DD571296DC for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.lamehost.it (unknown [80.76.80.23]) (Authenticated sender: marco@lamehost.it) by seele.lamehost.it (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ED0AE746D1; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 19:50:40 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:50:40 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <8650a0bcec9c95f3b1f1df5c447a401d@www.lamehost.it>
X-Mailer: RainLoop/1.10.3.151
From: marco@lamehost.it
To: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>, "IETF IDR WG" <idr@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <DF2B3771-7186-43D9-AAD4-3F6D92DDBFA4@juniper.net>
References: <DF2B3771-7186-43D9-AAD4-3F6D92DDBFA4@juniper.net> <20161020215938.GE1074@Vurt.local> <adb00bcd7b8e45db857eae7019c646fc@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <ae5da282-201c-f745-9f26-67ce73826bd5@i3d.net> <CA+b+ERkV2PBtzzx=uoygDzvTyJzunROCNX=0Y4phvGdn=oK5Xw@mail.gmail.com> <20161021154958.GR27221@gir.theapt.org> <CA+b+ERmrzCtFLP98D0YzRc-BJNbBWp3Ce6yKZr2cg1_QS0Oz5w@mail.gmail.com> <2ddbfbaf-7b99-53b9-365c-269fcc7746e7@i3d.net> <CA+b+ERn6dG+R8+UV-jaRXAV7eWQBygqEQp4VY4x1yKukpVKhTA@mail.gmail.com> <20161021164241.GC32387@Vurt.local> <20161022123423.GD79185@Space.Net> <20161023233431.GA76131@gweep.net>
X-Originating-IP: 37.130.210.2
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.11 (seele.lamehost.it [0.0.0.0]); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 19:50:41 +0200 (CEST)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.11 (seele.lamehost.it [0.0.0.0]); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 19:50:41 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at seele
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/qr1hkjTuikpkMWpXdmeufdRCJIM>
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: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:50:46 -0000

October 24, 2016 7:11 PM, "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>; wrote:
> Hi Everybody,
> 
> There has been a fair amount of debate about this sentence in the draft:
> 
> " Global Administrator: A four-octet namespace identifier. This
> SHOULD be an Autonomous System Number."
> 
> Many of the objections can be summed up by saying "I can't program a router to enforce this rule".
> This is true, but as Brian has pointed out, it's hardly the first example of such a thing in a BGP
> spec. (Indeed, RFC 1997 says the equivalent community field "shall be encoded using an autonomous
> system number" but of course provides no enforcement mechanism.)
> 
> Other objections seem to be pursuing the question of whether it might be possible to revise the
> proposal to make the rule enforceable. Whether or not this is possible in principle seems beside
> the point since it would violate the "small and simple" 1997-equivalent goal of the proposal that
> was part of the consensus when the WG accepted it. 
> 
> After reviewing the mailing list discussion to date, it's the chairs' sense that consensus is
> trending towards keeping the text as written. As always, if you disagree with that consensus and
> feel you have something new to add to the discussion, please do.
> 
> Thanks,

Hello John,

I have to admit that there is a tendency to put on paper rules that have relied on common sense for ages.
Thing that, most of the times, clashes with the goals to be as flexible and as "small and simple" as possible.

I agree with you that we should keep the text as written and *if needed* discuss the operational details on GROW.

Regards