IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage-06

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Wed, 19 April 2017 13:37 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1A2F1293F4; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 06:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 Gl1jzugwCKd0; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 06:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68249127275; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 06:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1d0pnn-0004HA-RV; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:37:48 +0000
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:37:45 +0900
Message-ID: <m2bmrs7c2e.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Cc: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>, gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage.all@ietf.org, grow@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage-06
In-Reply-To: <21c205d9-eac4-9403-8450-6bce56b3bfe6@gmail.com>
References: <149252287543.16134.18005737444773296286@ietfa.amsl.com> <20170418235858.sgsa64r7b5th7zam@Vurt.local> <21c205d9-eac4-9403-8450-6bce56b3bfe6@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.5 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/eAc_bFG5YGG_q2L-j6YFEbauc3g>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:37:52 -0000

> I was wondering if there was more scope to make mischief at a distance
> in a less less obvious way than before.

there isn't

but where were you when the blackhole community was passed?

> So you rely on the nodes that receive these community strings to
> interpret them in a common way.

no.  as with bgp communities since they were handed down to us by our
mothers, unless specified in some other document, there is no assumption
that all apply the same semantic to the same syntax.

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email