On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 12:11 PM Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>> BGP implementations have to take removal of private AS(s), > >>> confederation, AS migration, etc into consideration. > >> > >> and the winds of summer. we do not need to enumerate all knobs, as > >> if we could. > >> > > But enumerating *some* helps the reader understand the context in which > > this is important/useful. > > which is why > > When applied to egress policy, the effective origin AS MUST be used > to determine the Origin Validation state. The effective origin AS is > that which will actually be the origin AS in the announcement. It > might be affected by removal of private AS(s), confederation, AS > migration, etc. > One of the things that I personally like most about this document is that it concise - it clarifies something for *implementors* to keep in mind / points out something where they might trip over something and hurt themselves. While I generally like examples and detail in RFCs, in this case it would be "teaching your grandmother to suck eggs"[0] - the readers in this case are folk who write BGP, the document basically says "Warning: sharp object, careful with fingers" - having too much detail decreases the utility in this case. Again, I generally agree that documents should enumerate all of the corner cases, have examples, etc - but in this case I think it would do more harm than good... W [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_grandmother_to_suck_eggs > randy -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
