See inline. On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 4:56 PM Jay Borkenhagen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello Grow, > > The draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-01.txt posted today makes just a few > small changes w.r.t. -00: > > https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-01.txt > > Specifically: > > - the Abstract has been adjusted to indicate more clearly what things > vendors should do and what things network operators should do. > > - some loose wording in the Introduction has been tightened up. > > - the Section 6 "Action Items" are clarified similarly to the > clarifications in the Abstract. Also, in response to WGLC comments > from David Farmer, a paragraph was added to urge network operators > not to depend on any assumed treatment of bgp communities by any > neighbor networks: for example, do not assume that your transmitted > NO_EXPORT will be honored, unless the neighbor confirms that it will > be. > Your statement effectively changes the three Well-Known Communities defined in RFC1997 from "MUST NOT" to "SHOULD NOT". Basically, if you can not rely on those communities not being stripped then "MUST NOT" is way too strong of a statement. Maybe formally updating RFC1997 and changing the definition of the three communities to "SHOULD NOT" is an appropriate addition to this document. Also, a meta-data link from RFC1997 to this document seems like a good idea in general and by effect references in IANA Well-Known Community Registry to this document as well. Thanks -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:[email protected] Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
