Subject: Re: 2842

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 14:37:04 -0700

Alex,

> Makes perfect sense.
> 
> Alex
> 
> Wednesday, March 27, 2002, 8:46:49 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> > To be fair, zero-length shouldn't be the bugaboo.  It should be
> > multiple capabilities with the same code _and the same data_.
> > The zero-length case is just one example of this.

With this in mind, how about the following:

   BGP speakers SHOULD NOT include more than one instance of a
   capability with the same Capability Code, Capability Length,
   and Capability Value.  Note however, that processing of multiple
   instances of such capability does not require special handling,
   as additional instances do not change the meaning of announced
   capability.

   BGP speakers MAY include more than one instance of a capability
   (as identified by the Capability Code) with non-zero Capability
   Length field, but with different Capability Value, and either
   the same or different Capability Length.  Processing of these
   capability instances is specific to the Capability Code and MUST
   be described in the document introducing the new capability.

Yakov.

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 11:25:15 -0400

Suggested tweaks, largely removing some redundancies between the two
paragraphs.

BGP speakers SHOULD NOT include more than one instance of a
capability with the same Capability Code, Capability Length and
Capability Value.  Additional instances of a capability code do not
change the meaning of an announced capability.  Processing of these
capability instances is specific to the Capabilility Code and MUST
be described in the document introducing the new capability.

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 18:16:45 -0700

Yakov,

 Provided that the WG agrees that this is the right text,
 it would address my concerns.

Alex

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 06:41:44 -0700

Alex,

>  it would address my concerns.

Do you have any objections to the Jeff's modifications of my text ?

Yakov.