Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption for draft-kumari-deprecate-as-set-confed-set - 8/16 to 8/30/2019 - Accepted as WG draft

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 13:51:40 -0400

Authors: 

The consensus of the WG is that this draft should be accepted as a

WG draft, but that additional specification is needed. 

The authors should post draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set-00.txt. 

It is key that the authors look at the comments on what conforming
implementations

Should do if they do receive a set.   See the messages from Randy Bush, 

Jeff Haas and others  on this issue for this  draft.

I expect the authors to post a message on how what conforming 

implementations should do and text that will provide explicit actions. 

Cheers, Susan Hares 

From: Idr [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 10:34 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Idr] WG adoption for draft-kumari-deprecate-as-set-confed-set -
8/16 to 8/30/2019

Greetings: 

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for
draft-kumari-deprecate-as-set-confed-set

from 8/16 to 8/30/2019. 

This draft seeks to remove AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET from RFC4271.   

Draft is at: 

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kumari-deprecate-as-set-confed-set-14

To quote the draft: 

   "BCP 172 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp172>  [RFC6472
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6472> ] makes a recommendation for not using
AS_SET and
   AS_CONFED_SET in Border Gateway Protocol (BGP).  This document
   advances the recommendation to a standards requirement in BGP"

        [aka RFC4271].

   "From analysis of past Internet routing data, it is apparent that
   aggregation that involves AS_SETs is very seldom used in practice on
   the public Internet [Analysis
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kumari-deprecate-as-set-confed-set-14#ref
-Analysis> ] and when it is used, it is often used
   incorrectly -- reserved AS numbers ([RFC1930
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1930> ]) and/or only a single
   AS in the AS_SET are by far the most common cases."

In your comments on adoption, consider: 
 
1)  Should the IDR WG remove AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET from BGP? 
2)  Is this document a reasonable document to document that removal? 
3)  Are there technical flaws in the arguments for removal? 
4)  Are there issues with the text? 
 
Cheerily, Susan Hares