Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt (10/17/2016 to 10/31/2016)

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Wed, 19 October 2016 22:25 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@pfrc.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 2DE361297F3 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.332
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 sARr0mieZb1E for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B912B129492 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dresden.attlocal.net (99-59-193-67.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [99.59.193.67]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CEB091E1F0; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:27:26 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3ECDF03A-5CFF-48D4-B805-210000612974"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.0 \(3226\))
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <5807ED30.30204@foobar.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:25:15 -0400
Message-Id: <FF99651E-678D-4E8F-BBBD-C764C0F27671@pfrc.org>
References: <01f301d228b4$e3319ef0$a994dcd0$@ndzh.com> <CAN-Dau1dx_4o4yV=ytR-mFL1noLtGLKAZE3D_9mP5xxhSM=v_Q@mail.gmail.com> <107141A7-5CD2-4E48-8F6C-C737FF370359@pfrc.org> <5807ED30.30204@foobar.org>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3226)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/xMq9LaKlrLokih8d5Sztlj3ynz8>
Cc: Sue Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, IETF IDR WG <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-03.txt (10/17/2016 to 10/31/2016)
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: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 22:25:18 -0000

> On Oct 19, 2016, at 6:01 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>; wrote:
> 
> Jeffrey Haas wrote:
>> I had thought that a BCOP document on communities was out there for BGP
>> communities in general, but "community" clutters the search engines
>> quite a bit and I'm not finding such a thing.
> 
> are you thinking of rfc7454?

Something more complete than that.  An old NANOG output, if I recall correctly.

> 
> Dave's suggestion is definitely an operational- rather than a
> protocol-level issue.  draft-ietf-idr-large-community is a protocol
> definition, so it would be better to see this in a GROW document.

That's the point I was trying to make.  Although a "operational considerations" section is considered reasonable for IETF RFCs these days. (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5706 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5706>)


> 
> Nick