It doesn't clarify anything for me, but then I happen to know where that algorithm is defined.
Having spend the better part of last week stepping a vendor through exactly these semantics, my current mood is that explicit and specific is better. The intent in having the ref where it is, is to point at the AS_PATH => Origin As mapping procedure, rather than that section more generally. Cheers, Ben Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> ________________________________ From: Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> Sent: Friday, 20 March 2020, 20:29 To: Ben Maddison Cc: ke...@arrcus.com; last-c...@ietf.org; rjspa...@nostrum.com; sidr...@ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org; draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-egress....@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Sidrops] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-egress-01 > Although a little more verbose, perhaps the following is more explicit? > > As the origin AS of a BGP UPDATE is decided by configuration and > outbound policy of the BGP speaker, a validating BGP speaker MUST > apply Route Origin Validation policy semantics Against the Route > Origin ASN as determined by applying the procedure in [RFC6811, > Section 2] to the AS_PATH (see RFC 4271 4.3 Path Attributes:b) that > it will send in the UPDATE to the peer. i am torn about adding yet another 6811 ref. does it clarify anything? are there other possible "Route Origin Validation policy semantics?" if so, i might put it earlier, after "apply Route Origin Validation policy semantics". randy
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
