Hi Jeff and WGs,
#1
Could you kindly elaborate how changing the definition of T bit in -bis
draft does address this scope:
- Address the origination and reception of non-transitive routes across
eBGP boundaries.
With that please kindly clarify up front what T bit of extended community
has to do with routes ? Then please explain what is the issue with current
definition of T bit in RFC4360 in respect to draft-ietf-bess-ebgp-dmz while
in the same time it does not collide in any way or form with
draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth (which is proceeding fine forward).
#2
I am completely not comfortable to adopt this document. To me RFC4360 was
always very clearly written and in fact flexibility of having opaque
transitiveness across ASNs was a good feature not a bug.
#3
I am against wiping out original authors of RFC4360 with just a few lines
of pretty much at best cosmetic changes ... replacing them with a single
name - even if such practice complies with IETF process (not sure if -bis
is even needed here).
Network Working Group S. Sangli
Request for Comments: 4360 D. Tappan
Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Y. Rekhter
Juniper Networks
February 2006
Kind regards,
Robert
On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 9:23 PM Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
> IDR, BESS,
>
> During the work driven by draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth, the issue of
> originating non-transitive was brought up and partially discussed in the
> use case work for draft-ietf-bess-ebgp-dmz. As discussed during IDR
> sessions at IETFs 122 and 123, the preferred solution for addressing the
> ambiguities in non-transitivity was to do a small -bis for RFC 4360. Nat
> Kao has kindly agreed to be our editor to move this process along. This
> document, and issues vs. it, will be managed in the IDR github.[1]
>
> Since this is IDR chair commissioned work to address this gap, it's our
> intention to adopt this work. However, the chairs would like to provide a
> review period to OBJECT to adoption. That said, if you'd like to offer
> support for the work, or other technical comments, please do so in this
> thread!
>
> This adoption check ends on 5 September. Please note this overlaps the US
> Labor Day holiday and consider that in the timing of your request, in case
> that's relevant.
>
> The scope of the commissioned work is:
>
> - Address open errata vs. RFC 4360
> - Address the origination and reception of non-transitive routes across
> eBGP boundaries.
>
> The current text of the draft currently addresses these items.
>
> As part of reviewing this problem, the IETF archives show that there was
> prior work covering this issue in
> draft-decraene-idr-rfc4360-clarification-00 [2]. We've made sure to
> acknowledge those prior efforts in the -bis and would request review from
> those authors on this -bis.
>
> -- Jeff (for the IDR Chairs)
>
> [1] https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-rfc4360-bis
> [2] Bruno and company are to be commended for pressing this issue for
> several years. While prior IDR mail threads seem to suggest "this works
> fine was the answer", the fact that we had non-transitive behaviors as a
> point of contention in the BESS LBW work means it's past time to enshrine
> fixing the original criticisms in an RFC update.
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *[email protected]
> *Subject: **I-D Action: draft-chairs-idr-rfc4360-bis-00.txt*
> *Date: *August 22, 2025 at 2:46:40 PM EDT
> *To: *<[email protected]>
> *Reply-To: *[email protected]
>
> Internet-Draft draft-chairs-idr-rfc4360-bis-00.txt is now available.
>
> Title: BGP Extended Communities Attribute
> Author: Nat Kao
> Name: draft-chairs-idr-rfc4360-bis-00.txt
> Pages: 13
> Dates: 2025-08-22
>
> Abstract:
>
> This document describes the "extended community" BGP-4 attribute.
> This attribute provides a mechanism for labeling information carried
> in BGP-4. These labels can be used to control the distribution of
> this information, or for other applications.
>
> This document obsoletes [RFC4360].
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chairs-idr-rfc4360-bis/
>
> There is also an HTMLized version available at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-chairs-idr-rfc4360-bis-00
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
