> On Jul 26, 2020, at 12:28 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 2:10 PM Randy Bush <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > no need to attribute nationality to bad practice examples > Also, there is no need to attribute the bad examples to anyone, anonymize the > bad examples using documentation prefixes and documentation ASNs. We all have > made mistakes, I know I wouldn't want mine memorialized forever in an RFC.
OK, fair enough. But I’m concerned that if there are no references to examples (good or bad), a reader who has little or no experience with this issue will have no basis to compare the different types of prepending. I’d like to see the approach taken in RFC 7908 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7908> used here also. There were several incidents of route leaks cited, but route leaks were also classified according to types identified in the incidents. Out of curiosity, were people unhappy that 7908 called attention to the organizations involved in the route leak incidents? Also, arguably, the mistakes called attention to in the AS_Path prepend draft have been “memorialized” because they can be accessed through the Datatracker (provided one knows how to use its history features). Regards, Greg
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
