Re: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-scudder-idr-rfc3392-bis-00

["Cayle Spandon" <cayle.spandon at gmail.com>]

> My impression is that we don't really have WG consensus regarding
> whether the error subcode name should be left as "Unsupported
> Capability", or renamed "Required Capability Missing" or similar.
> Lacking consensus I'm inclined to err on the side of leaving it
> alone.  I'd welcome any further input on this.

I vote for renaming it to "Required Capability Missing" or similar
(but keeping the same code-point).

The current name causes confusion and I have run into a number of
real-life examples where this caused interop problems. See, for
example, the last paragraph in section 2.1 of expired draft
draft-huston-idr-as4bytes-survey-00.txt:

      Some older versions of xxx send an unsupported capability
      notification (instead of ignoring the capability) when they
      receive a capability advertisement which they don't recognize and
      which has non-empty data.  The 4-octet as-number capability is
      such a capability.  Our implementation recognizes this
      notification and stops automatically stops advertising the 4-octet
      as-numbers capability (and others) until the next hard clear on
      the BGP session.
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr