Re: [Idr] WGLC on draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Jon:

Please refer to my comment on BCP as I believe it must be a BCP since it
modifies a BCP.  In a BCP, I believe the MUST uses RFC 2119. 
I believe, the WG chairs can change it to a BCP given it modifies a BCP - as
an editorial change. 

I've asked for Stewart Bryant to give us a read on the BCP issue.  And as
always, the WG will speak if up someone objects. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Mitchell [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:02 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: 'Randy Bush'; 'Nick Hilliard'; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Pete
Resnick
Subject: Re: [Idr] WGLC on draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00


I agree with the understanding (in fact one might say this is implied
already by this being for Private Use).  A question for you or Randy..
does this make RFC 2119 a normative or informative reference given this is
not a standards track document?  If Normative, should I include the
prescribed "Specification of Requirements" section text as well?   

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 05:55:39PM -0500, Susan Hares wrote:
> Jon:
> 
> My understanding of your text is that it operationally MUST be done.   I
> like you, will  leave the "how to" to implementations and operators.   If
> it's a filters or pure fairy-magic, it is fine by me.  I do not think 
> this MUST modification implies the method.
> 
> My understanding from my wonderful Routing ADs is something that 
> modifies a BCP (RFC1930) is generally a BCP.  However, we'll let 
> Stewart Bryant (our Routing AD) weigh in on that fact.
> 
> Sue
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Mitchell [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 5:38 PM
> To: Susan Hares
> Cc: 'Randy Bush'; 'Nick Hilliard'; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Idr] WGLC on draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00
> 
> 
> I'm comfortable making the change to a capital MUST for this sentence 
> and adding the appropriate reference to RFC 2119 as necessary.  I'm 
> just not comfortable telling operators how to perform that action as 
> there are a number of options to do so, which was my point to David 
> (and he seemed to be ok with).  I will make the changes as necessary 
> to the abstract where this statement exists as well.
> 
> As for BCP versus info, I leave that up to the chairs, but this does 
> not obsolete or otherwise change text in RFC 1930 outside of the IANA 
> considerations section (RFC 1930 is primarily about justification for 
> an ASN).  There is no "practice" being advocated by the draft to be 
> best or current, outside of the practice of not sending Private Use 
> ASNs to the Internet.
> 
> Jon
> 
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 04:56:27PM -0500, Susan Hares wrote:
> > Randy and Nick:
> > 
> > Please note that Randy is correct about the use of MUST language, 
> > and it is an appropriate editorial question for WG LC or the period 
> > between WG LC and IETF LC ending.
> > 
> > For my clarification, why is the following text using "must" without 
> > the MUST language?
> > 
> >    If Private Use ASNs are used and prefixes are originated from these
> >    ASNs which are destined to the Internet, Private Use ASNs must be
> >    removed from the AS_PATH before being advertised to the global
> >    Internet.
> > 
> > In my reading of this text, it is specifying the 2119 language.  In 
> > this case the text would be:
> > 
> >    If Private Use ASNs are used and prefixes are originated from these
> >    ASNs which are destined to the Internet, Private Use ASNs MUST be
> >    removed from the AS_PATH before being advertised to the global
> >    Internet.
> > 
> > I look forward to the authors comment on this point.  Since this 
> > document is modifying a BCP (RFC1930), it is likely to be a BCP.  
> > Please
> note I consider
> > this an issue that the authors need to address this RFC2119 issue.
> Please
> > note this type of editorial review is normal during the post WG-LC 
> > when the chairs perform an editing review prior writing up a IESG
> Shepherding report.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I am not widening our restricted request for advice on the WG LC
> agreement.
> > We are still focus this week on the range.   
> > 
> > May you have Shalom in your Holidays,
> > 
> > Sue
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf 
> > Of Randy Bush
> > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 12:04 PM
> > To: Nick Hilliard
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Idr] WGLC on draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00
> > 
> > > I don't think the IETF is too hot on the idea of "MUST" appearing 
> > > in non normative documents?
> > 
> > normative is how a document is referred to by another document, and 
> > one can never know that.
> > 
> > and, despite common rumor, one can have 2119 language in an info or bcp.
> > 
> > rand
> > _______________________________________________
> > Idr mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr