Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-large-community-09

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> Fri, 02 December 2016 14:01 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.com>
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 C0C051294C4; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 06:01:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.417
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.417 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 9rjrsZO7n5R9; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 06:01:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19B3D1294BF; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 06:01:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9306; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1480687305; x=1481896905; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=NUdbg6bq6G6bAf3+FKJD0UwSKMpZKWE3wHLM8h57K6U=; b=fe6YQkRcFzlmWCH3QuDi8k10FsMQqcTYHhbiqiQsBGYEKX2U1+E+ouQo y5v5ymlpGkP5CTRHtZAJnKYra3dcbMG34PUiAmz/ERfiupd+XIv2msRN4 ghIiyot2vtJqqhJu4GUTxX+pNF9agmo9+zQ6t+oTXs8Z8Uw9jDTwgW1RP 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0B2AQDBfUFY/4sNJK1dGgEBAQECAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QgBAQEBgnNFAQEBAQEfWoEGB40/pmWFIoIGhiICGoF+PxQBAgEBAQEBAQFiKIR?= =?us-ascii?q?pBiNWEAIBCD8DAgICMBQRAgQOBRSIW6x1gikviw0BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEchj6BfYJeh00tgjAFlHqFaQGRE5A5jgCEDAEfN4EZMQEBhSJyhkEGgSq?= =?us-ascii?q?BDQEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,729,1477958400"; d="scan'208,217";a="355861910"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 02 Dec 2016 14:01:44 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uB2E1h4M012184 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 2 Dec 2016 14:01:44 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 08:01:43 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 08:01:43 -0600
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-large-community-09
Thread-Index: AQHSTFEplUv+tL/kGUyk1NyWV0fUzaD0l0wAgAAl5QCAAFayAP//rXUA
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 14:01:43 +0000
Message-ID: <45E0BA2C-D626-4C8C-85BC-42792C8B062B@cisco.com>
References: <CE1331E4-3ECA-41D7-801F-05519778E8DA@cisco.com> <94f48779-14c8-0ec0-93ef-69eeba49e5be@gmail.com> <8B6BA07A-D636-4D8C-8B02-A5CB05538AAF@cisco.com> <AAC9E38F-BF0D-41D7-8871-9B89D31BC37B@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <AAC9E38F-BF0D-41D7-8871-9B89D31BC37B@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1a.0.160910
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_45E0BA2CD6264C8C85BC42792C8B062Bciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/tZdF8As-oXW2fJe0vWwLGajujeo>
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-large-community@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-large-community@ietf.org>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-large-community-09
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, 02 Dec 2016 14:01:48 -0000

That works for me too.

On 12/2/16, 8:57 AM, "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net<mailto:jgs@juniper.net>> wrote:

On Dec 2, 2016, at 8:46 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com<mailto:aretana@cisco.com>> wrote:
Removing and ignoring are obviously different thingsā€¦  The text above is fine with me, but I would ask: what do the current implementations do?  If they remove (as originally specified), then I would suggest you keep that.

What do you think would be a good minimal change to clarify? How about changing the word "duplicate" to "redundant"?

OLD:
   Duplicate BGP Large Community values MUST NOT be transmitted.  A
   receiving speaker MUST silently remove duplicate BGP Large Community
   values from a BGP Large Community attribute.

NEW:
   Duplicate BGP Large Community values MUST NOT be transmitted.  A
   receiving speaker MUST silently remove redundant BGP Large Community
   values from a BGP Large Community attribute.

--John