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

Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Fri, 04 November 2016 19:43 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 827E2129607 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:43:36 -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=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 qZ-x8TbIlaCM for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:43:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ao-mailgw.apnic.net (ao-mailgw.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dd8:8:701::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 0DBD5129452 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iamda3.org.apnic.net (unknown [2001:dd8:9:2::101:249]) by ao-mailgw.apnic.net (Halon) with ESMTPS id f59b4bb6-a2c6-11e6-b8ce-005056b6ee6f; Sat, 05 Nov 2016 05:43:29 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from dhcp150.potaroo.net (203.119.101.249) by iamda3.org.apnic.net (203.119.111.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Sat, 5 Nov 2016 05:43:28 +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: <20161104181259.GH961@Vurt.local>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 06:43:30 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <F9658E97-1514-4C07-9B13-4B7BA5E6092F@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> <288c77155de540adbdb60d8587b9f39b@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <E3FB42F7-507F-4F8D-9F52-70D39CDCDAC9@apnic.net> <20161104171834.GE961@Vurt.local> <20161104181259.GH961@Vurt.local>
To: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/zFZQzsKB7wy5kHxIIizNsCzgiRo>
Cc: IETF IDR WG <idr@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <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 19:43:36 -0000

> On 5 Nov. 2016, at 5:12 am, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> wrote:
> 
> If we consider this as Option B:
> 
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 06:18:34PM +0100, Job Snijders wrote:
>> Does removing the word "canonical" address the raised remark?
>> 
>> """
>> 4.  Representation
>> 
>>   Large BGP Communities MUST be represented as three separate unsigned
>>   integers in decimal notation in the following order: Global
>>   Administrator, Local Data 1, Local Data 2.  Numbers MUST NOT contain
>>   leading zeros; a zero value MUST be represented with a single zero.
>>   For example: 64496:4294967295:2, 64496:0:0, or (64496, 111, 222).
>> """
> 
> Option C:
> 
> 4.  Canonical Representation
> 
>   Large BGP Communities SHOULD be represented as three separate
>   unsigned integers in decimal notation, separated by a colon, in the
>   following order: Global Administrator, Local Data 1, Local Data 2.
>   Numbers MUST NOT contain leading zeros; a zero value MUST be
>   represented with a single zero. For example: 64496:4294967295:2
>   or 64496:0:0.
> 
> 
> Option D:
> 
>    remove the section and let the market figure it out.
> 
> Some might argue "this is a minute detail" - however I do think that the
> proliferation of ways to notate extended communities have not really
> helped the extended communities effort. this is a good chance and a good
> place to shortcut some of that proces and provide guidance.
> 
> Option C is basically as watered down as possible. Settle on that and
> move on?
> 

I say “YES” - thanks Job

Geoff