Subject: [Idr] Last Call: 'Autonomous System Confederations for BGP' to Draft Standard (draft-ietf-idr-rfc3065bis)

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 13:09:18 -0400

The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG to consider 
the following document:

- 'Autonomous System Confederations for BGP '
   <draft-ietf-idr-rfc3065bis-05.txt> as a Draft Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
[email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by 2006-08-23.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-rfc3065bis-05.txt

Implementation Report can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/implem_RFC3065bis.txt

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

---

From: "Ilya Varlashkin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 13:33:58 +0200

Hello,

> -----Original Message-----
> The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing 
> WG to consider the following document:
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and 
> solicits final comments on this action.  Please send any 
> comments to the [email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists 
> by 2006-08-23.
> 
I've just went through the document and have one question. The draft
specifies new segment types AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE and AS_CONFED_SET, and
specifies how to handle AS_PATH containing such segment in received
UPDATEs. There is also good amount of information on how AS_SEQUENCE can
be introduced into AS_PATH, however it doesn't seem to be clear from the
document how and when AS_CONFED_SET can and should be added to AS_PATH.
Is it described somewhere else or is this provision for further
development of the protocol standard? In first case it would be nice to
provide reference to a document where such description could be found,
and in later case it might be good idea to explicitly state that
"introduction and update of segments of type AS_CONFED_SET is not yet
defined".

Kind regards,
iLya

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:18:21 -0400

Ilya,

Thanks for pointing this out.  Since (as far as I know) nobody has an 
implementation which actually generates AS_CONFED_SETs nor does such 
seem likely, we're thinking that we should clarify the document by 
deprecating AS_CONFED_SET.

Comments from the group?  Anyone aware of any reason not to do this?

--John

>Hello,
...

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:33:06 -0400

On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 01:18:21PM -0400, John G. Scudder wrote:
> implementation which actually generates AS_CONFED_SETs 

That statement would be incorrect.

-- Jeff

---

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:09:40 -0700

>(as far as I know) nobody has an 

Oops!  In fact, when advancing to Draft Standard, that's exactly what's
required - if nobody's implemented something, it *has* to get dropped
from the spec.

  Bill

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 10:18:20 -0600

> required - if nobody's implemented something, it *has* to get dropped

Interestingly enough, I didn't decouple AS_CONFED_SET and
AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE in the implementation report, though
it was asked more/less explicitly whether reporting implementations
support AS_CONFED_SET.

I'll synch with John and Jeff to work up some next text that will
hopefully accommodate this, thanks for the [belated] comments
folks...

-danny