Re: [GROW] AS_Path prepend BCP

[john heasley]

Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 03:36:18PM -0700, Greg Skinner:
> Out of curiosity, were people unhappy that 7908 called attention to the 
> organizations involved in the route leak incidents?  Also, arguably, the 
> mistakes called attention to in the AS_Path prepend draft have been 
> “memorialized” because they can be accessed through the Datatracker (provided 
> one knows how to use its history features).

I'm not; be specific.  Allow others to easily find the data for their
own research or verification of conclusions.  Is there value in hiding
our errors?

___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Re: [GROW] AS_Path prepend BCP

[Greg Skinner]

> On Jul 26, 2020, at 12:28 PM, David Farmer  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 2:10 PM Randy Bush  > wrote:
>  
> no need to attribute nationality to bad practice examples 
> Also, there is no need to attribute the bad examples to anyone, anonymize the 
> bad examples using documentation prefixes and documentation ASNs. We all have 
> made mistakes, I know I wouldn't want mine memorialized forever in an RFC.

OK, fair enough.  But I’m concerned that if there are no references to examples 
(good or bad), a reader who has little or no experience with this issue will 
have no basis to compare the different types of prepending.

I’d like to see the approach taken in RFC 7908 
 used here also.  There were several 
incidents of route leaks cited, but route leaks were also classified according 
to types identified in the incidents.

Out of curiosity, were people unhappy that 7908 called attention to the 
organizations involved in the route leak incidents?  Also, arguably, the 
mistakes called attention to in the AS_Path prepend draft have been 
“memorialized” because they can be accessed through the Datatracker (provided 
one knows how to use its history features).

Regards, Greg


___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow