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

[Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>]

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