Hi Srinam, I don't believe that wording is appropriate for an RFC. The wording that is consistent with the current BGP spec is actually in the -07 version.
regards, Geoff On 29/10/2010, at 3:34 AM, Sriram, Kotikalapudi wrote: > Geoff: > > Sorry about the previous email with an incomplete message. > I hit some key accidentally and off it went :( > > As you know, the following email messages between you, Chris and > myself are relevant to your 08-rev as well. > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg02020.html > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg02017.html > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg02015.html > > Consistent with the above messages, > I would like to suggest removing the algorithmic aspects > of how to handle updates with AS_SET. > Instead wording along the lines (you may fine tune the wording) > should be included: > It is recognized that in a very small percentage of updates, > proxy aggregation with inclusion AS_SET attribute is found. > There is a proposal under consideration in the IDR WG > to deprecate AS_SETs. Description of the part of the algorithm > that deals with origin validation of updates with AS_SET is deferred > pending outcome of the IDR WG action on this issue. > > Sriram > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Christopher >> Morrow >> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 4:58 PM >> To: Geoff Huston >> Cc: Sandra Murphy; [email protected] wg >> Subject: Re: [sidr] WG LC request for draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-08.txt >> >> This was sent along (the requested LC message) to the list today... >> see you in 2 weeks (at decision time) >> >> -chris >> (wg-co-chair-cycling-shoes == on) >> >> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Geoff Huston <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Let me try that once again! >>> >>> The authors have revised the text relating to the definition of the origin >>> AS to be >> conformant to the current BGP specification, namely that if the AGGREGATOR >> path >> attribute is present it "contains the last AS number that formed the >> aggregate route" >> [RFC4271]. If this path attribute is not present the draft defines the >> origin AS as the AS >> preceding the AS_SET, which is a definition that has been drawn from the >> earlier WG mail >> thread on this topic >>> >>> The intention here is not to impose criteria that differ from RFC4271, and >>> define the >> origin AS in an manner that if an AS undertakes proxy aggregation in >> conformance with >> RFC4271 then this definition of origin AS will correctly identify the >> aggregator AS as the >> origin AS. This is slightly different from the various suggestions seen so >> far on the WG >> mailing list, but it is believed that this refines those suggestions in the >> light of a careful >> reading of the relevant sections of RFC 4271. >>> >>> The authors do not plan any further revisions of this document, and, >>> accordingly, would >> like once more to request a WG Last Call of the -08 rev of the document. >>> >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> Geoff -- Geoff Huston Chief Scientist, APNIC +61 7 3858 3100 [email protected] _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
