On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 7:05 PM Jay Borkenhagen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Regarding David Farmer's suggestion that RFC1997 needs to be updated: > speaking for myself, I would be satisfied leaving RFC1997 as-is while > this draft documents RFC1997's shortcomings. Anyone with strong > feelings to the contrary may write that draft. > Thinking this through a little more there are two separate issues that seem to be treated as one; 1. I suggested changing "MUST NOT be advertised" to "SHOULD NOT be advertised" in the definition of the three Well-Known Communities provided in RFC 1997. a. Since BGP Communities are advisory in the first place, an absolute prohibition seems out of place, especially when the default "set" directive by most implementations results in the behavior that is prohibited by the statement. b. While I think it would be a good idea to fix this now, if that doesn't happen, I can live with it the way it is. 2. However separately, if this document doesn't provide a meta-data link updating RFC 1997, or a reference to this document is not somehow included in the IANA Well-Known Communities Registry, how are implementers of RFC 1997 BGP Community to know they "MUST ensure that any Well-Known Communities specified after this document's publication are removed by their "set" directive." By my understanding, this new requirment is updating RFC 1997, so a meta-data linkage is warranted in my mind, even without #1 above. 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
