Subject: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-last-as-reservation-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 06:54:45 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Reservation of Last Autonomous System (AS) Numbers
	Author(s)       : Jeffrey Haas
                          Jon Mitchell
	Filename        : draft-ietf-idr-last-as-reservation-00.txt
	Pages           : 4
	Date            : 2013-07-15

Abstract:
   This document reserves two Autonomous System numbers (ASNs) at the
   end of the 16 bit and 32 bit ranges, described in this document as
   "Last ASNs" and provides guidance to implementers and operators on
   their use.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-last-as-reservation

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-last-as-reservation-00

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 10:13:52 -0700

while i think this draft is not dangerous, it strikes me as somewhat
silly.  creating standards attempting to preempt stupid programming
errors has neither proof of termination or of effectiveness.

randy

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:30:42 -0400

Randy,

> errors has neither proof of termination or of effectiveness.

The primary purpose of this draft is bookkeeping for IANA to say why the
last AS numbers are reserved and why it should be treated somewhat
distinctly from private AS numbers.

The main comment about "use of 65535 would cause issues with well known
communities" is a core one for that AS.  

Wanting to leave the top 4-byte AS reserved for similiar reasons seems wise.

But if your objection is to get rid of the section about bugs, that's fine
and we can probably do that.  I've just had too many conversations in the
last decade with people who've had stupid bugs along those lines and thought
it was a nice to have to document that.

-- Jeff

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 10:48:59 -0700

as i said, not obviously harmful.

---

From: David Farmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 17:59:38 -0500

This looks good to me and I support it continuing to move forward.

But, I have a few relatively minor editorial Nits;

- There is a Singular/Plural mismatch in the second paragraph of section 
3, "last ASN of the 16 bit range, 65535, are reserved", should be "last 
ASN of the 16 bit range, 65535, is reserved".

- There is another Singular/Plural mismatch in the first paragraph of 
section 4, "a Special Uses", should be ether be either "Special Uses", 
or "a Special Use".  I think either way works fine, it just needs to 
match. (Sorry about that one, my bad, this was in the text I gave you)

- I think the order of the sentences in the second paragraph of section 
4 should be reversed.  I think it would be better to start with "These 
last ASNs MUST NOT be advertised ...", then "Operators that choose to 
filter Private Use ASNs ... SHOULD also filter ...".  The "MUST NOT 
advertise" is the primary requirement, and the "SHOULD filter" is really 
just a recommended way of achieving it.

- I'm not sure, but maybe, the first use of "Private Use ASNs" in 
section 4 should include a reference to 
[I-D.ietf-idr-as-private-reservation] and eventually the RFC when 
published.  Maybe the use in section 5 as well, but I'm less concerned 
about that one.

Thanks

On 7/17/13 08:54 , [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>

-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: [email-masked]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================

---

From: Jon Mitchell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 22:09:22 -0400

Inline, can pick these up in next (and hopefully final) rev.

On 22/07/13 17:59 -0500, David Farmer wrote:
> - There is a Singular/Plural mismatch in the second paragraph of
> section 3, "last ASN of the 16 bit range, 65535, are reserved",
> should be "last ASN of the 16 bit range, 65535, is reserved".

[JM] I will fix the wording to be more clear but this is not a
singular/plural mismatch, your snippet missed the subject which was
"subset of BGP communities".

> - There is another Singular/Plural mismatch in the first paragraph
> of section 4, "a Special Uses", should be ether be either "Special
> Uses", or "a Special Use".  I think either way works fine, it just
> needs to match. (Sorry about that one, my bad, this was in the text
> I gave you)

[JM] Will fix this wording.

> 
> - I think the order of the sentences in the second paragraph of
> section 4 should be reversed.  I think it would be better to start
> with "These last ASNs MUST NOT be advertised ...", then "Operators
> that choose to filter Private Use ASNs ... SHOULD also filter ...".
> The "MUST NOT advertise" is the primary requirement, and the "SHOULD
> filter" is really just a recommended way of achieving it.

[JM] Agreed.

> [I-D.ietf-idr-as-private-reservation] and eventually the RFC when

[JM] I don't see anything in the style guide, but I have been assuming
like most technical docs only the first mention of a term requires
reference unless you are calling out specific terminology or section.
This was done in the intro.