Re: [Gen-art] [Sidrops] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-egress-01

On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 12:56 -0700, Randy Bush wrote: > ( warning: quote depth errors and top posting. keyur's mta, well > let's > not get into that :) > > > Speaking as a wg member. > > and one of the first ROV implementors, tyvm. > > > Shouldn’t you be checking the "my autonomous system

Re: [Gen-art] [Sidrops] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-egress-01

>As the origin AS of a BGP UPDATE is decided by configuration and >outbound policy of the BGP speaker, a validating BGP speaker MUST >apply Route Origin Validation policy semantics (see [RFC6811] Sec 2) >against the origin Autonomous System number which will actually be >put in

Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] [Sidrops] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-egress-01

I think 6811 is the right ref for this. 8481 is the one you put in an RFP ;-) I still prefer my wording, but this should be sufficiently hard to misinterpret. Get Outlook for Android From: Job Snijders Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 8:48:51

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-yang-06

Hi Theresa, We somehow missed this email - Our apologies. We have updated few rev of drafts since then . The latest one being uploaded later today is rev-09 Please see inline [skraza20] On 2019-09-25, 3:51 AM, "Theresa Enghardt via Datatracker" wrote: Reviewer: Theresa Enghardt

Re: [Gen-art] [Sidrops] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-egress-01

> Although a little more verbose, perhaps the following is more explicit? > > As the origin AS of a BGP UPDATE is decided by configuration and > outbound policy of the BGP speaker, a validating BGP speaker MUST > apply Route Origin Validation policy semantics Against the Route >

Re: [Gen-art] [Sidrops] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-egress-01

It doesn't clarify anything for me, but then I happen to know where that algorithm is defined. Having spend the better part of last week stepping a vendor through exactly these semantics, my current mood is that explicit and specific is better. The intent in having the ref where it is, is to

Re: [Gen-art] [Sidrops] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-egress-01

> Having spend the better part of last week stepping a vendor through > exactly these semantics while there is no proof of termination of clue insertion, that a BGP/ROV *implementor* did not get it, justifies the hack. As the origin AS of a BGP UPDATE is decided by configuration and

Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] [Sidrops] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-egress-01

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 11:42:47AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: > > Having spend the better part of last week stepping a vendor through > > exactly these semantics > > while there is no proof of termination of clue insertion, that a BGP/ROV > *implementor* did not get it, justifies the hack. > >