search

stoffi92 / rfc5575bis

0 stars 0 forks source link

IESG Benjamin Kaduk: Section 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.2 #191

Closed stoffi92 closed 4 years ago

stoffi92 commented 4 years ago

Section 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.2

While I don't anticipate needing a future extension to numeric_op, having the '0' field only be "SHOULD be set to 0" (vs. "MUST") seems to hamper any future extensibility efforts. (Similarly for the "Traffic-action" field in Section 7.3, and "Traffic-marking" from Section 7.5.)

suehares commented 4 years ago

The text that states: "SHOULD be set to 0 on NLRI encoding, and MUST be ignored during decoding"

is actually used for extensibility. The set to zero indicates that sending should be a know state, and the receiver ignores all the settings.

My recommendation is to leave the text as is. After Robert and Christoph sees my answer, we can close this one.

stoffi92 commented 4 years ago

This has been discussed at length. And we ended up with Postel.

stoffi92 commented 4 years ago

//doc The text that states: "SHOULD be set to 0 on NLRI encoding, and MUST be ignored during decoding"

is actually used for extensibility. The set to zero indicates that sending should be a know state, and the receiver ignores all the settings.