On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 11:54:10PM +0000, Job Snijders wrote: > I posted a small revision to clarify the scope of the document > > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-spaghetti-grow-bcp-ext-comms-00&url2=draft-spaghetti-grow-bcp-ext-comms-01&difftype=--html
Thanks for the clarifications. I think with these clarifications and further thought my stance moves to "mildly don't support adoption". But there's perhaps still room for refinement to change my mind. The main motivation of the document seems to be to say "don't use extended communitites to signal RS behavioral operations". I'm supportive of that. What the document actually does say is: "Operators of Internet Exchange Route Servers are RECOMMENDED to scrub Extended Communities in both inbound and outbound directions." In other words, get involved in throwing away someone else's stuff. Whether scrub is intended to mean "selectively filter" vs. "throw away indiscriminately" is ambiguous in the current text. While some of the motivation is to limit the leaking of VPN-signaling excrement that has left an appropriate scope, extended communities are a general purpose mechanism that gets leveraged for general purpose features, and not exclusively is intended for VPN purposes. If the proposal would be updated to recommend specific extended community types and subtypes to filter, I'd be supportive of that. But if the proposal is to filter all extended communities, I'm not supportive of that. FWIW, such filtering practices are a good input for the bcp-194-bis work. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
