Thanks, I'll turn the handle.
A > -----Original Message----- > From: iesg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Smith (djsmith) > Sent: 05 February 2015 18:00 > To: [email protected]; Benoit Claise (bclaise); 'The IESG' > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; bess- > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: RE: Benoit Claise's Discuss on > draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-09: > (with DISCUSS) > > > Adrian>If we had "ACCEPT_OWN handling SHOULD be controlled by > configuration, and if controlled by configuration it MUST default to being > disabled"... > > I agree this may be most optimal. > > /dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 8:24 AM > To: Benoit Claise (bclaise); 'The IESG' > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Benoit Claise's Discuss on > draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-09: > (with DISCUSS) > > Bit disappointed that this is a Discuss. > > But let's discuss it. > > > Ron's point, part of the OPS-DIR review, look valid to me. Can we > > please discuss it. > > > > This document is well written and well thought out. It is almost ready > > for publication with one small issue. > > > > In Section 2.3, the authors say, " ACCEPT_OWN handling SHOULD be > > controlled by configuration, and SHOULD default to being disabled. IMO, > > they should say, "ACCEPT_OWN handling MUST be controlled by > > configuration, and MUST default to being disabled." > > > > AFAIKS, you would never want to build a router where ACCEPT_OWN > > behavior is always on and cannot be disabled by configuration. > > Likewise, you would never want to build a router where ACCEPT_OWN > behavior is the default. > > I reject specifications that control what one might want to build. We produce > specs to define interoperable behavior and to ensure the Internet works. We > don't legislate for people producing product in niches or that is entirely > unsalable. > > However, let's separate the two SHOULDs. > > Suppose one wanted to build an implementation where the feature is not > controlled by configuration and is always disabled? > In that case you would be banned from doing so if "ACCEPT_OWN handling MUST > be controlled by configuration", so I would say that "SHOULD" is correct in > the > first case. > > I suspect the second "SHOULD" is a consequence of a compound sentence. > If we had "ACCEPT_OWN handling SHOULD be controlled by configuration, and if > controlled by configuration it MUST default to being disabled" then that > might be > closer to correct according to what Ron is suggesting. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > PS. Would have helped if the original review had reached the AD, shepherd, and > WG. Maybe also the IETF list. _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
