Re: [Idr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-11: (with COMMENT)

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Fri, 24 June 2016 21:16 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.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 1093F12D603 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 Ga5E-xcz31pB for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 774B9128B44 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: idr@ietf.org
Received: from cupcake.local (089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u5OLGcxB047851 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 24 Jun 2016 22:16:39 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged) claimed to be cupcake.local
Message-ID: <576DA334.9090809@foobar.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 22:16:36 +0100
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 4.0.8 (Macintosh/20151105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
References: <20160613132809.12486.44511.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <575EB839.3050303@foobar.org> <0DE7AB8E-4CFD-44C5-898F-47F48B542599@kuehlewind.net> <575F2704.3050509@foobar.org> <m237ogo5w1.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAL9jLaaCa9aUOw0HUfyrt05GTYL+yGZum1M=3_4r_E0nx4PqJg@mail.gmail.com> <A65A6088-433D-4200-B098-B2FFEB0A45CD@psg.com> <CAL9jLabgF=h9wSg4GoDoJiT76HcKK2DhpJv=ZxLws7LSs8RN3g@mail.gmail.com> <575FD94E.8030606@foobar.org> <m2inxckqr8.wl%randy@psg.com> <575FF3B9.3080501@foobar.org> <m2ziqnk8b1.wl%randy@psg.com> <CE1FDB6A-53EE-4649-B880-23EA1D7F75D4@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <CE1FDB6A-53EE-4649-B880-23EA1D7F75D4@kuehlewind.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/r6FLE7CPvgliSOTp5INOhrIea2k>
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] =?iso-8859-1?q?Mirja_K=FChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-?= =?iso-8859-1?q?ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-11=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
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: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 21:16:45 -0000

Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote:
> sorry for my late reply. Yes, that was not capturing my point. Please
> provide some reasoning with the SHOULD is not a MUST. What are the
> cases where you should not follow the SHOULD.

Ok.  I've changed the text to read:

> 2.2.2.1. Route Server AS_PATH management
> 
> As a route server does not participate in the process of forwarding
> data between client routers, and because modification of the AS_PATH
> attribute could affect route server client BGP Decision Process, the
> route server SHOULD NOT prepend its own AS number to the AS_PATH
> segment nor modify the AS_PATH segment in any other way. This differs
> from the behaviour specified in section 5.1.2 of [RFC4271], which
> requires that the BGP speaker prepends its own AS number as the last
> element of the AS_PATH segment. This is a recommendation rather than
> a requirement solely to facilitate legacy RS client implementations
> which do not yet support the requirements specified in Section
> 2.2.2.2.
> 
> 2.2.2.2. Route Server client AS_PATH management
> 
> In contrast to what is recommended in section 6.3 of [RFC4271], [...]

This splits up 2.2.2 into two sub paragraphs and adds a sentence to the
end of the first paragraph which refers to the second.

Does this work for you, or would you prefer if -12 were posted before
commenting?

Nick