Hi Jeff, 

On 7/10/17, 4:32 PM, "rtgwg on behalf of Jeffrey Haas"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:

>Acee (and other authors),
>
>On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 02:42:01PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>>directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Routing Area Working Group of the IETF.
>> 
>>         Title           : Routing Area Common YANG Data Types
>>         Authors         : Xufeng Liu
>>                           Yingzhen Qu
>>                           Acee Lindem
>>                           Christian Hopps
>>                           Lou Berger
>>      Filename        : draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-08.txt
>>      Pages           : 40
>>      Date            : 2017-06-29
>> 
>> Abstract:
>>    This document defines a collection of common data types using the
>>    YANG data modeling language.  These derived common types are designed
>>    to be imported by other modules defined in the routing area.
>
>Thanks for the updates for the various route-target,origin and site of
>origin extended community types.  I'll try to take some some to read the
>regex in detail.
>
>My lingering issue with the route-target types is that IETF work on VPNs
>will continue to add extended communities to have route-target semantics
>outside of the types originally defined in RFC 4360.  The current example
>of
>this is the ES-Import community.

I think this is a type that would be shared across L2VPN and BGP modules.
We have this format for route-origin, we can add it for route-target
preceded by “6:”. 
>
>I believe we either need to:
>1. Provide a generic format for types other than 0,1,2. Or,
>2. Document how the relevant type is intended to be maintained.

There is a trade-off here in providing strong typing and flexibility. I
don’t see how we can anticipate the textual conventions for all future
route target types in advance. If you want flexibility, we could just make
it a string ;^) 

>
>For example, the module that route-targets is part of is not IANA
>maintained.
>
>If this issue is still unclear, let's plan on spending a small amount of
>hallway time discussing this in Prague.

Sounds good.

Thanks,
Acee 

>
>-- Jeff
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtgwg mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

Reply via email to