I support adoption (as author) and I like the idea of adding an “Action Items” section perhaps with some of the examples discussed.
Serpil From: GROW <[email protected]> on behalf of Job Snijders <[email protected]> Date: Monday, June 11, 2018 at 2:13 PM To: Grow Mailing List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [GROW] WG Adoption Call: draft-ymbk-grow-wkc-behavior-01 2018.06.11-2018.06.26 Hi all, On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 08:59:39PM +0000, Job Snijders wrote: The authors of draft-ymbk-grow-wkc-behavior [1] requested the chairs to consider issuing a call for working group adoption. Here is the abstract: "Well-Known BGP Communities are manipulated inconsistently by current implementations. This results in difficulties for operators. It is recommended that removal policies be applied consistently to Well-Known Communities." [1]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ymbk-grow-wkc-behavior-01 Please take a moment to read and evaluate the document and let the working group know whether you'd like to continue work on this document as working group or not. We'll close the call on 2018-06-26 Speaking with no hats: I support adoption of this document. Commenting specifically on the draft content, I'd maybe like to see Section 6 "Action items" be along the lines of "Operators are recommened not to use "set community" or "community set" and just explicitly remove/add what needs to be done. Getting the vendors to align may be very challenging, but we can at least inform operators in such a way they are aware of the risks and encouraged to write more portable, readable routing policies. Kind regards, Job _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
