Re: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt

Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Fri, 04 November 2016 01:18 UTC

Return-Path: <gih@apnic.net>
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 2CC8412949C for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 18:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -108.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=unavailable 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 8r3A4a0LpSs4 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 18:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nx-mailgw.apnic.net (nx-mailgw.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dd8:9:801::25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94CA31295F6 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 18:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iamda3.org.apnic.net (unknown [2001:dd8:9:2::101:249]) by nx-mailgw.apnic.net (Halon) with ESMTPS id 91ef3513-a22c-11e6-b23e-005056b685e3; Fri, 04 Nov 2016 11:18:19 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from [202.158.221.23] (203.119.101.249) by iamda3.org.apnic.net (203.119.111.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 11:18:21 +1000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\))
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <20161104004725.GC17584@shrubbery.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:18:20 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <C35E4C4D-6670-474D-AE2B-95C704CBD6B4@apnic.net>
References: <112dc01d235fd$57f9c370$07ed4a50$@ndzh.com> <C2DABF02-D3CB-4646-B869-FBCE5F05FDA1@apnic.net> <117ea01d23611$a28513e0$e78f3ba0$@ndzh.com> <CED07D95-A426-469C-85B4-DB2FBE52D14A@apnic.net> <20161104004725.GC17584@shrubbery.net>
To: heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/wAFneAZI8x1_SlRRnZ4frBlm2SM>
Cc: IETF IDR WG <idr@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, rtg-dir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt
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, 04 Nov 2016 01:18:27 -0000

> On 4 Nov. 2016, at 11:47 am, heasley <heas@shrubbery.net> wrote:
> 
> Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 11:14:29AM +1100, Geoff Huston:
>> 2. ----------------
>> 
>> "Network operators 
>> attach BGP communities to routes to identify intrinsic properties of
>> these routes."
>> 
>> I don't think community attributes are an intrinsic property of a route
>> advertisement - they are more appropriately expressed as an attached attribute 
>> that expresses some desired property.
>> 
>> how about:
>> 
>> "Network operators attach BGP communities to routes to associate
>> particular properties with these routes."
> 
> is "particular" a useless word here?  I think the original text is fine, but
> to consider your suggestion and follow the less-is-more mantra….
> 


I was taking exception to the word “intrinsic”

The route attributes attach properties to the route - they are not expressing
an “intrinsic” property of the route.

I suggested “particular” to propose that the properties expressed with 
communities are an association added by the BGP speaker.

But less is more could just drop the adjective completely and I’d be equally
happy!


Geoff