resending to include working group On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:26:58AM +0100, Job Snijders wrote: > Dear Jay, > > On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 07:01:09PM -0500, Jay Borkenhagen wrote: > > Since Job's message of 10-December extending the WGLC by one week, I > > have seen only two replies, both on-list, both in support of > > publication. > > > > One respondent (Shunwan) recommended collecting more vendor defaults. > > I am not opposed to that, but (i) I would expect vendors (or possibly > > their customers) to volunteer that information, and (ii) I'm not sure > > the document is actually improved by listing more behaviors -- I think > > it's good enough to let people know that different behaviors exist, > > and that vendors are unlikely to change their defaults now, so network > > operators need to take care in this regard. > > That seems reasonable. > > > David Farmer also responded. David's point that some operators have > > been surprised by a neighbor network's handling of NO_EXPORT is valid. > > I believe that -01 addresses it -- just not in the way that David had > > suggested. > > > > So, how do you esteemed chairs suggest we proceed now? > > I think the document is mostly ready to proceed down the publication > pipeline, but speaking as WG participant I'm not entirely sure about a > normative term in the Action Items section: > > "Vendors MUST ensure that any well-known communities specified after > this document's publication are removed by the "community set" > action." > > While I think I understand the intent, but I'm not convinced this is the > right approach, the implications of the sentence are complex. Since > there is no formal definition of what "community set" means in all > contexts, we should treat it as pseudo-code, which means (lacking > definitions of what it /is/), we shouldn't be specifying what it /is > not/. What perhaps can be specified is that 'new WKC' should be treated > the same as the implementation treats regular communities when it comes > to add or remove actions, to avoid increasing the inconsistency? > > On the other side, the sentence "Vendors SHOULD share the behavior of > their implementations" perhaps can be made stronger by replacing the > SHOULD with a MUST. And perhaps remove the phrase "for inclusion in this > document". > > Another action item could be to suggest that operators should avoid > using routing policy language constructs that treat some communities > special, e.g. avoiding the use of 'community set' will result in easier > to read and more consistent configurations across multiple platforms. > > Kind regards, > > Job
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
