Subject: Re: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-scudder-idr-rfc3392-bis-00

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 05:09:28 -0700

John,

> Folks,
> 
> I've done some minor updates to the Capabilities Advertisement  
> specification to address confusion about the "Unsupported Capability"  
> NOTIFICATION message:
> 
> 	Appendix B.  Comparison with RFC 3392
> 	
> 	   In addition to minor editorial changes, this document also clarifies
> 	   the use of the Unsupported Optional Parameter NOTIFICATION message,
> 	   and updates references to the base BGP-4 specification [RFC4271] and
> 	   security analysis [RFC4272].
> 
> The draft is at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-scudder-idr-rfc3392
-bis-00.txt 
> .
> 
> Comments welcome.  One thing that occurred to me was to rename  
> "Unsupported Capability" to "Required Capability Missing", however  
> that might do more harm than good by renaming an existing code point,  
> so I didn't.
> 
> I'd like to propose this as a WG item (if indeed such a request is  
> even required for an update to an existing WG document?).

Based on the received responses your document is accepted as an IDR
WG item. Please resubmit it as draft-ietf-idr-rfc3392bis-00.txt

Yakov.
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 20:44:05 -0400

> WG item. Please resubmit it as draft-ietf-idr-rfc3392bis-00.txt

Done.  The submitted version is the same as draft-scudder-idr-rfc3392- 
bis-00.txt other than title and date; I'll submit an update to reflect  
WG comments shortly.  (So if you sent me a comment and don't see it  
reflected, don't worry.)

My impression is that we don't really have WG consensus regarding  
whether the error subcode name should be left as "Unsupported  
Capability", or renamed "Required Capability Missing" or similar.   
Lacking consensus I'm inclined to err on the side of leaving it  
alone.  I'd welcome any further input on this.

--John

---

From: Chandrashekhar Appanna <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 18:53:21 -0700

> Lacking consensus I'm inclined to err on the side of leaving it  

  I agree with that point of view... leave it alone.

  Chandra.

---

From: "Cayle Spandon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 08:08:59 -0400

> alone.  I'd welcome any further input on this.

I vote for renaming it to "Required Capability Missing" or similar
(but keeping the same code-point).

The current name causes confusion and I have run into a number of
real-life examples where this caused interop problems. See, for
example, the last paragraph in section 2.1 of expired draft
draft-huston-idr-as4bytes-survey-00.txt:

      Some older versions of xxx send an unsupported capability
      notification (instead of ignoring the capability) when they
      receive a capability advertisement which they don't recognize and
      which has non-empty data.  The 4-octet as-number capability is
      such a capability.  Our implementation recognizes this
      notification and stops automatically stops advertising the 4-octet
      as-numbers capability (and others) until the next hard clear on
      the BGP session.
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr