Subject: Re: BGP-draft-19: Issue 40 Clear Connect retry timer

From: "Tom Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 18:40:02 -0000

Issue 40, outstanding, no consensus, suggests removing the action
'clear connect retry timer' from many places since the action is not
needed there.

I propose we leave it in and close this issue.

1) To take out an action as redundant you need to be supremely
confident that it really cannot make a difference.  I am not
(supremely confident); rather, the more I look at the FSM, the more
places I find where actions are missing, as I have posted to the list,
from obscure yet possible sequences of events and timing.  And there
is an outstanding issue of mine which flagged seven places where the
next state was missing and so I think it impossible for any one to be
confident that any particular action is redundant until that is
cleared up and that is proving complex in some cases.

So, play safe, keep them in.

2) The argument for removing them is that the number of possible
distinct action lists is increased.  True - it will mean that an
implementor will have to code more code when first implementing BGP.

For me this is no contest; keeping it safe at the possible cost of
redundancy outweighs the one-off cost of additional implementation.

So keep the actions in and close the issue.

Tom Petch
[email-masked]

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:55:56 -0500

I would tend to agree.

I would suggest, Sue, that when all is said and done that actions that
are commonly taken in a given order be grouped together to make it
obvious that "this cluster of things happens more than once".  This
was present in some of your previous versions I helped you review. :-)

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies