Subject: [GROW] Updated draft-haberman-rpsl-reachable-test available

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:55:39 -0500

All,
      Based on feedback from the GROW list and a couple of private 
e-mails, I have submitted draft-haberman-rpsl-reachable-test-02.txt. 
Any additional comments/suggestions are welcome.  I am discussing the 
best way to advance this draft as a Proposed Standard with the ADs.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Tony Tauber <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:27:24 -0800

On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 09:55:39AM -0500, Brian Haberman wrote:
> e-mails, I have submitted draft-haberman-rpsl-reachable-test-02.txt. Any 
> additional comments/suggestions are welcome.  I am discussing the best 
> way to advance this draft as a Proposed Standard with the ADs.
>
> Regards,
> Brian

Hi,

The small table in Sec. 2 characterizes the new attributes as mandatory.
While I like the idea, I don't think mandatory is the right thing
because people may have some kinds of reasons for not having such an
address set up or perhaps not being ready at the time when they need to
submit the object.

Do others have thoughts on this piece?

Thanks,

Tony

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:32:28 -0500

> address set up or perhaps not being ready at the time when they need to

When you say submit the object, are you referring to the pingable 
attribute or the route[6] object?  My intent is that if the operator 
supports this functionality, then the two attributes are mandatory.  I 
think I see where the confusion is.  One way to parse the text implies 
that the pingable and ping-hdl attributes are mandatory for all route[6] 
objects.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Tony Tauber <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:45:16 -0800

On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:32:28AM -0500, Brian Haberman wrote:
> attribute or the route[6] object?  

The route[6] object since I read this to mean that these new attributes
are mandatory like origin and mnt-by are today.  Hence any object
submitted without the new attributes would be rejected.

> My intent is that if the operator supports this functionality, then
> the two attributes are mandatory.  

By operator do you mean network operator or IRR operator?
I'm guessing the former.

> I think I see where the confusion is.  One way to parse the text
> implies that the pingable and ping-hdl attributes are mandatory for
> all route[6]  objects.
>
> Regards,
> Brian

I think so, yes.

Shouldn't they be changed to optional?

Thanks,

Tony

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:47:14 -0500

> By operator do you mean network operator or IRR operator?

Correct.

> Shouldn't they be changed to optional?

Yes, they should be optional attributes of the parent object (e.g., 
route[6]).

Thanks,
Brian