Re: [bess] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 09 December 2021 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D27D3A0DC7; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 08:03:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uL8YgZVa3P6W; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 08:03:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-x92e.google.com (mail-ua1-x92e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE10A3A0A3E; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 08:03:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-x92e.google.com with SMTP id t13so11594737uad.9; Thu, 09 Dec 2021 08:03:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5a+87PVK20v+qUB2jud4yxyQlN12nT1COU/OYDrDH3s=; b=UGNZwFGDPUPe3KNqLxQj/Wyh3W4Mzi0mMhn1oITy3m64iRga4WUb2p6a/kXPlumqYc brrcy8Z7FvIwL5FKC5cGz05stnqaycc1syg8TClppuVYcLzSTjbD/ZPpD9Z6/ZiLz//O CGq3cnzFBqUr+qUI+LinsgHO5wbEgGpekFI65i2X739bVb2/lHQT/BHrUWfAjT2mo84u T+fze2f6NvC+noHopmyx/mHJSdaE3USH22QwOseUI4UllutNYd4nkKOTqDZFWPsbUY4p ZbPR/t5cQdrRSPYUqP4d+BIXqu5sWVYJCCaXjFllCDuHFd1/Vh8oIMOxBNhivXHOA9KD kajA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5a+87PVK20v+qUB2jud4yxyQlN12nT1COU/OYDrDH3s=; b=VZAnpK1UFDkxjKvT1eu6O34DtearBXzj1m4vhu+fy6Sc0OcUAMC1tChe+n21uFrzB1 B8HvFVcJjl+GY7Iil7ZpGcdeqsbbfmpDxX3A3gHGA4G93vJgaFrFhwQIiYxZ29lDoACB 00s1P9fETIdwt7TDbJ9WbpngeXIbCHAkK2zXGgPjoWMyjFOuAeR2AyyMc200RpmqW5LH 3NbRwTfvbt3rcHnU+Lt8F+8lJ5RWp0WazafNsBTwkrSGzbxF94ZqcUxeCNmxM99/R12o r5fOKp5AHFyvN1atv2Z41fttfZpMtYO+sRPE8Sgu8Xlmti5QWstM8o7OljFw3qKPIxBg N/LA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530U9Bv5na19dMdvRNdIwUod6KtBNqUjoAG1iBlA6/Mt0hVoSOAz tbB22xbMnem+loVbQ/S+j1XS6Vtrg2zP4exzZRoi3XI1
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxABKMbjBrxSQSx4rnMVhpZ2sFtQ5xOiNDgYB4LeGAf+EjcmiC7gXCq9tl3Ai7ZWfCq0dn8AV+BxjYkycmdj+U=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:5fc6:: with SMTP id t189mr8268708vsb.79.1639065796109; Thu, 09 Dec 2021 08:03:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <163540284115.17244.15277994722797303943@ietfa.amsl.com> <BYAPR11MB27255BF6A848DF80C8F27322DF9A9@BYAPR11MB2725.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR11MB27255BF6A848DF80C8F27322DF9A9@BYAPR11MB2725.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2021 08:03:04 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwaB3i+v_gRD-w8oYtLqXui8OTXVi3GDiiOs_eDzOwmgUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" <mankamis@cisco.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "Stephane Litkowski (slitkows)" <slitkows@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy@ietf.org>, "bess-chairs@ietf.org" <bess-chairs@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, "slitkows.ietf@gmail.com" <slitkows.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008a68f405d2b8bef4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/0D0USuUU-U4whDTD_6l6gecYtGE>
Subject: Re: [bess] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2021 16:03:23 -0000

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:03 PM Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) <
mankamis@cisco.com> wrote:

> (0) I suggest making each of the actions you want to take (there are four)
> into
>
> their own subsections of this section.
>

Any thoughts on this point?

(1) "EVPN Extended Community sub-types registry" should be "EVPN Extended
> Community Sub-Types sub-registry of the BGP Extended Communities registry",
> which makes it easier to find.
>

...or this one?

(2) "Multicast Flags Extended Community" appears to be a new registry you're
> creating in the final action here.  BCP 26, for a First Come First Served
> registry, advises that a change controller column be included.  Are you
> intentionally omitting this here?  Or if this is referring to an existing
> registry, I wasn't able to find it.
>
> Mankamana :The registry in (1), above, is also FCFS and it does not have
> a change controller column.
>

Well, BCP 26 says they both should.  It's unfortunate the other registry
doesn't, but is that a good reason not to add one here?

Section 3 defines "NV" and "NVO", but these terms appear nowhere in the
> document.
>
Thanks for fixing this.

Every SHOULD in this document, other than the ones that talk about logging,
> left me wondering why an implementer might decide not to follow that
> advice.
> Since SHOULD presents a choice, I suggest including some guidance about why
> it's a SHOULD, i.e., when one might decide not to do what it says and still
> expect to interoperate.  Or should some of these really be MUSTs?
>
> Mankamana : My understanding should gives more flexibility to
> implementation to make choices. And may not be good idea to make every
> thing MUST until without it protocol breaks. Is there any specific
> instance which you want to make MUST ?
>
> If the point is just to give choices, then I suggest you consider using
MAY.  SHOULD is defined to mean "Do this unless you have a really good
reason not to", and in those cases, the document serves the reader better
if it gives some guidance as to why an implementer might do something other
than what it says.

-MSK

>