Re: [Sidrops] AD review of draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 5:31 PM Job Snijders <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 02:16:46PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> > > 1: Why is this Standards Track? It doesn't update a Std Track
> > > document
> >
> > well, it does.  6811.  i guess i should figure out how to get that in
> > the header.
>
> add this in the <rfc ...> tag:
>
>     updates="6811"
>

... and in the Abstract add "This updates RFC6811 by $something and
$something_else" -- perhaps "This updates RFC6811 by clarifying that
all prefixes should be marked, and that policy must not be applied
without operator configuration"


> > > 2: Section 3.  Mark ALL Prefixes "Significant Clarification: A
> > >   router MUST mark all routes in BGP coming from any source (eBGP,
> > >   iBGP, or redistribution from static), unless..."
> > > Presumably the router should also mark routes redistributed from
> > > protocols other than static as well? Regardless of the wisdom of
> > > redistributing $favorite_igp, I'd assume they should be consistent.
> >
> > hmmm.  i guess i should include 'connected'.  can you think of others?
>
> also "generated", so perhaps:
>
>     """
>     A router MUST mark all routes in BGP coming from any source (EBGP,
>     IBGP, IGP, or redistribution from static and generated routes, etc),
>     unless...
>     """"
>

Works for me....

Thank you very much!
W

> Kind regards,
>
> Job



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf