On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Could you say please whether this means you support publication or you
>> do not?
>>
>>> from a running router
>>>
>>>    policy-statement rpki {
>>>        term valid {
>>>            from {
>>>                protocol bgp;
>>>                validation-database valid;
>>>              }
>>>            then {
>>>              validation-state valid;
>>>                community add whatever-the-heck-i-want;
>>>                accept;
>>>              }
>>>            }
>>>
>>> there is an invalid drop policy-statement too, but no sense for it to
>>> set a community as it ain't goin' nowhere.

And from one of the IETF meeting routers:

 community RPKI_Invalid members 56554:102;
 community RPKI_Unknown members 56554:103;
 community RPKI_Valid members 56554:101;

policy-statement RPKI-Primary {
        term valid {
            from {
                protocol bgp;
                validation-database valid;
            }
            then {
                local-preference 210;
                validation-state valid;
                community add RPKI_Valid;
            }
        }
        term invalid {
            from {
                protocol bgp;
                validation-database invalid;
            }
            then {
                local-preference 190;
                validation-state invalid;
                community add RPKI_Invalid;
            }
        }
        term unknown {
            from {
                protocol bgp;
                validation-database unknown;
            }
            then {
                local-preference 200;
                validation-state unknown;
                community add RPKI_Unknown;
            }
        }
    }

I don't really see how the proposal (which is at least concise!) is
better / makes my life easier -- it seems like syntactic sugar to me,
but not actually harmful. I don't care if it gets published or not.
>
> because the goal of this draft can already be reached simply through use
> of existing means, i do not support publication.
>  i am not strongly
> opposed.  it's just one more bit of ietf work that is not obviously
> needed.

... and this is the bit I'm actually responding to -- it is unusual
for an author to not support publication of their own document, and am
a little confused what it means. How should the chairs interpret this
-- It is a stronger statement if an author says that than if a random
participant does?

W


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

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

Reply via email to