Subject: [bess] Alia Atlas' Yes on draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alia Atlas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 08:47:50 -0800

Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-09: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In Sec 2,2, it says:
"This implies that when propagating routes into a VRF,
   the ACCEPT_OWN community should not be propagated.  Likewise, if a
   route carrying the ACCEPT_OWN community is received in an address
   family which does not allow the source VRF to be looked up, the
   ACCEPT_OWN community MUST be discarded."

In the first sentence above, it seems like the "should not" should be
either "SHOULD NOT"
or "MUST NOT".  Is there a reason that the text is descriptive instead of
normative?

---

From: Thomas Morin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 13:51:42 +0100

Hi Alia,

Alia Atlas:
> either "SHOULD NOT" or "MUST NOT".  Is there a reason that the text is descriptive instead of
> normative?

A possible reason to choose to use descriptive text is that the 
propagation of a route into a VRF is a purely local matter. A specific 
implementation might have specific reasons not to discard the community 
at this step, and, as long as the attribute is discarded before being 
re-advertized to a VRF CE BGP neighbor, this is fine.  I think your 
concern is valid since no text makes this mandatory.

I would suggest keeping the first sentence as is, but modify the second 
sentence to cover route advertisement additionally to reception.

OLD:

    Likewise, if a route carrying the ACCEPT_OWN community is received
    in an address family which does not allow the source VRF to be looked up, the
    ACCEPT_OWN community MUST be discarded.

proposed NEW:

    Likewise, if a route carrying the ACCEPT_OWN community is received or re-advertized
    in an address family which does not allow the source VRF to be looked up, the
    ACCEPT_OWN community MUST be discarded.

Authors, do you agree ?

-Thomas, as doc shepherd

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 13:29:25 -0000

Hi Alia,

Yeah, the "this implies" follows from the previous sentence that contains a "SHOULD NOT" and so this sentence is a descriptive annotation to the previous sentence.
The subsequence sentence is back into the world of normative text.

A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
> Sent: 03 February 2015 16:48
> To: The IESG
> Cc: [email-masked]; bess-
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Alia Atlas' Yes on draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-09: (with
> COMMENT)
>