Hi @Job Snijders<mailto:[email protected]>
You are entitled to your opinion and but I think the response was too personal here. If you have a specific concern about my work, please tell me directly what it is. Otherwise, let us keep this discussion on the draft. My sporadic contributions to reviews and my own drafts predate AI tools by a decade. My own way of working of reviewing, collating an responding in best possible way. If structuring is what you are looking for, I can share the template. Feel free to use it. Coming to less interesting things: On the point you answered, I agree that the community is meant to travel globally. My concern was about what happens when each network receives it. The community is an event/signal carrier: it does not create an agreement between networks about the service they will provide. Anything on these: "when the mitigation should end, stale routes, and what happens if the route leaks". Please let me know whether you consider these out of scope. Thanks, Saumya. From: Job Snijders via GROW <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, 29 September 2026 at 4:04 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [GROW] Re: Review of draft-ietf-grow-downgrade-bgp-community: scope and operational safety Hello, Thank you for your interest in this draft. [[ As an aside, according to Pangram, "100%" of the email I am replying to is AI-generated, it indicated: "Result: This appears to be AI text that has been paraphrased or rewritten." I don't know to what extend the Pangram service is accurate, but a cursory review of the posting history shows a fair number of reviews were sent in a short period of time, which in my mind raises some questions. https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=from*3Asaumya.dikshit*40hpe.com__;JSU!!NpxR!ngxAvAp-Ly3EZ_DKCmMPlT6YgUTB6JwHlttZ9Eul8vr8hZVjOViLCtB_1NlDCRHOPDg9zOhV0xwh$ ]] In any case, I'll reply to the key point: On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 07:24:11PM +0000, Dikshit, Saumya via GROW wrote: > I have a few comments on operational safety. > > 1) Section 3.1 recommends marking downgraded traffic with the LE DSCP > at egress to the next network domain. Section 3.4 also says operators > should not remove the DOWNGRADE community. Together, these two points > mean that both the BGP signal and the packet treatment can continue > beyond the first receiving network. Yes. We consider it beneficial to propagate the signal. There is no reason for it to stop specifically at the first AS hop. > * It would clarify global propagation of the community does not imply > a globally identical traffic treatment contract. I don't think this ever was implied. Kind regards, Job _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
