Subject: RE: issue 32.1 - tail end of SUMMARY

From: "Natale, Jonathan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 12:43:11 -0400

5) Removing " well-known mandatory attribute" in 5.1.1.  Consensus was to
not remove it, but rather specify attribute flavor for all attributes in
5.1.x's sections (for consistency).

6) Change " generated by the autonomous system" to " generated by the
speaker".  Consensus was to make this change.

7) Add ~= "other speakers do not change the ORIGIN value".  This was
because:
" It shall be included in the UPDATE messages of all BGP speakers that
choose to propagate this information to other BGP speakers"

...did not clearly say this.  Consensus was to make this change.

-----Original Message-----
From: Natale, Jonathan 
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:25 PM
To: 'Jeffrey Haas'; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; Natale, Jonathan; 'Yakov Rekhter'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: issue 32.1

SUMMARY:

1) we all agree that an rfc904 reference is in order.

2) EGP is already flagged as historical, and all current implementations
still support ORIGIN=EGP, so deprecating this is not that important, but I
think we already had a consensus to deprecate it.

3) I stand by my original assertion the IGP ~= route was explicitly
introduced and INCOMPLETE ~= implicitly introduced.  This reflects the
network command and the redistribute command.  This reflects a larger
percentage of implementations (aka "working code").  The current definitions
leave people scratching there heads.  The current consensus seems to be to
not change these definitions.  :-(

4) I almost agree with Curtis that adding ~= "unless configured to do so" is
going to clutter up the doc, but "configured" is already in the doc 19
times.  BGP is highly configuration dependant, get over it.  Not sure what
the consensus on this is.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 11:43 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; Natale, Jonathan; 'Yakov Rekhter'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: issue 32.1

On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 11:51:44AM -0700, [email-masked]
wrote:
> 		  1	    EGP - Network Layer Reachability Information
> 				learned via the EGP protocol [RFC904]
> 
> That would clarify that we're talking about the protocol, and not the
> class-of-protocols, or EBGP.  It would leave unstated that this could
> theoretically be used to muck with route selection.  I think that is
> ok.  If operators want to override ORIGIN to affect some hoho magic,
> they are welcome to do so, but I don't think it needs to be documented
> in the base spec.

I'm cool with this.

> Andrew

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies