Jerome,
Your approach may work. Since you can't soften the 2119 definition of the word
"MUST", you will have to do something clever in the Introduction to restrict
the scope if the document's recommendations.
How will you do this?
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerome Durand (jerduran) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:52 PM
To: Ronald Bonica
Cc: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve); opsec wg mailing list;
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Start of 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-bgp-security
Thank you Ron for your comment and support,
Actually I believe exceptions can more or less happen for every guideline
listed in the document. My view is that it is better to stay on the generic
case and maybe better highlight in introduction that exceptions happen when
both peers agree to do so. Idea would be that normative language only refer to
classic peerings (not the exception scenario) so we don't have to change MUST
for SHOULD everywhere in the doc and lower the value of the doc.
What do you think?
Thanks
Jerome
Le 16 avr. 2014 à 16:50, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]> a écrit :
> Folks,
>
> In Sections 5.1.1.1 and 5.1.1.2, you say, "Only prefixes with value "False"
> in column "Global" MUST be discarded on Internet BGP peerings."
>
> This statement is mostly true, but I can think of a corner case. Assume that
> two autonomous systems are cooperating to provide a DS-lite or some similar
> service. They might agree to co-ordinate assignment of non-global routes and
> exchange non-global routes with one another.
>
>
>
> Ron
>
>
> From: Ronald Bonica
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:34 AM
> To: 'Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)'; opsec wg mailing list
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Start of 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-bgp-security
>
> Folks,
>
> This document is very comprehensive and well-written. Kudos to the authors.
>
> However, please take a look at the Forward.
>
> Ron
>
>
> From: OPSEC [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gunter Van de
> Velde (gvandeve)
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 7:56 AM
> To: opsec wg mailing list
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Start of 2nd WGLC for
> draft-ietf-opsec-bgp-security
>
> Please find this reminder to query for your feedback.
>
> Brgds,
> G/
>
> From: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)
> Sent: 08 April 2014 11:18
> To: opsec wg mailing list
> Cc: KK ([email protected]); [email protected]
> Subject: Start of 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-bgp-security
>
> Dear OpSec WG,
>
>
> This starts a 2nd Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-opsec-bgp-security.
> Due to the time taken to integrate all comments from the first WGLC this 2nd
> WGLC is initiated.
>
> All three authors have replied, stating that they do not know of any IPR
> associated with this draft.
>
> The draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-bgp-security/
>
> Please review this draft to see if you think it is ready for publication and
> comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
>
>
> This WGLC ends 22-April-2014.
>
>
> Thanks,
> G/
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSEC mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
--
Jerome Durand
Consulting Systems Engineer - Routing & Switching [email protected] - +33 6
35 11 60 50
blogs: http://reseauxblog.cisco.fr - http://ipv6blog.cisco.fr
twitter: @JeromeDurand
linkedin: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/jeromedurand
CISCO France
11, rue Camille Desmoulins
92782 Issy les Moulineaux
CEDEX 9
FRANCE
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
