Subject: [Idr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-large-community-11: (with COMMENT)

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2017 05:14:31 -0800

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-large-community-11: No Objection

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 https://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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-large-community/

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

One question: Since the Global Administrator field could also be not an
ASN, would it be useful to say something about what should be done if an
unknow value is received (ignore, remove, log an error...)?

---

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 14:25:35 +0100

Dear Mirja,

> draft-ietf-idr-large-community-11: No Objection

Thank you for your review.

Section 5 states:

    """
    The BGP Large Communities Global Administrator field may contain
    any value, and a BGP Large Communities attribute MUST NOT be
    considered malformed if the Global Administrator field contains an
    unallocated, unassigned or reserved ASN.
    """

Further more, based on our experience with the current implementations
[1], [2] there was no perceived ambiguity amongst the implementers what
to do with non ASN values in the Global Administator field. The global
administrator field contains just an unsigned 32-bit integer.

The consensus on the mailing list was to treat the non ASN values
exactly the same as normal values. As such it would not be correct to
ignore, remove, or log an error.

In other words, the ability to put a non-ASN values in the Global
Administrator field is by design.

Kind regards,

Job

[1]: http://largebgpcommunities.net/implementations/
[2]: https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/idr/trac/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-large-community%20implementations

---

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 14:42:29 +0100

Okay, thanks for your clarification. Was reading this part in section 5 and therefore wondering if any action should follow. But if that was discussed that’s fine.

> Am 02.01.2017 um 14:25 schrieb Job Snijders <[email-masked]>:
> 
> Dear Mirja,
>