On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 09:52:40AM -0800, Enke Chen wrote:
> Hi, Bruno:
>
> This is really well said, and I share the same concern:
>
> And for existing fields, IMHO, this document should be conservative with regards to its
> change on existing specifications. IMHO it should only forbid the use of AS 0 when necessary
> for your new use case).
>
>
> So far I have not seen much justifications (nor need) for expanding
> error conditions of AS 0 beyond the AS_PATH / AS4_PATH.
I also agree. I think the text as written tends to violate the Robustness
principle.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
