[sidr] Question about draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-03

[Danny McPherson <[e-mail]>]

My read of the current draft suggests that if there's a route generated by the 
local AS in BGP it could never have a "Valid" state, and by definition would 
either posses a "Not found" or "Invalid" state -- even though the local 
AS may well have a "ROA" and reside in the mapping table as well(!).

I do not believe the current text is Section 5 is sufficient to address this case, 
specifically with either this:

"Considering invalid routes for BGP decision process is 
a pure local policy matter and should be done with utmost care."

or this:

"In some cases (particularly when the selection algorithm is 
influenced by the adjustment of a route property that is not 
propagated into IBGP) it could be necessary for routing 
correctness to propagate the validation state to the IBGP 
peer.  This can be accomplished on the sending side by setting 
a community or extended community based on the validation 
state, and on the receiving side by matching the (extended) 
community and setting the validation state."

I could think of a number of way to address this, but for there to exist the 
possibility that an internally generated prefix (for which a ROA may well exists)
could NEVER have a "Valid" state needs to be corrected.

Also, S 4:  s/to rest of the network/to the rest of the network/

Thanks, 

-danny