Subject: [Idr] 2858bis and SNPA

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 15:58:15 -0800

Folks,

Due to the fact that we did not get reports on at least two
(interoperable) implementations that use the SNPA field (see
attached), we have to deprecate this field, as we move the spec to
Draft Standard (keeping the SNPA field in the spec is *not* an
option). I just submitted a revised draft that reflects this. Please
look at the text to see if you have any editorial comments *related
to that change* and get back to me 3/14/2006.

Yakov.
------- Forwarded Message

Date:    Sun, 12 Feb 2006 13:18:17 -0800
From:    Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
To:      [email-masked]
Subject: [Idr] 2858bis and SNPA

Folks,

If any of you has an implementation that uses the SNPA field
of MP_REACH, please drop me an e-mail. If we would not get
at least two reports of an implementation that uses the SNPA field 
within the next two weeks we'll need to assume that this field is not used,
and therefore has to be deprecated as we move to Draft Standard.

Yakov.

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

------- End of Forwarded Message

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 12:38:05 -0500

Yakov,

> to that change* and get back to me 3/14/2006.

The text in question:
: Reserved:
: 
: A 1 octet field that SHOULD be set to 0.

Aside from the indentation issue, wouldn't a MUST be more appropriate here?

The issue is that anyone who has code that interpreted SNPAs per RFC 2858
will most certainly have issues if this is non-zero.  This is true
even if they did nothing other than parse the packet and discard them.

In addition, what should a newly compliant implementation do with this
value if non-zero?  Normally the text is "MUST be set to zero and SHOULD
be ignored upon receipt".  No similar guidance is offered here.

> Yakov.

-- Jeff

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 10:18:17 -0800

Jeff,

> be ignored upon receipt".  No similar guidance is offered here.

Unless there are strong objections, I'll modify the draft to reflect
your point above - "MUST be set to zero, and SHOULD be ignored upon receipt".

Yakov.