Re: [bess] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-10

Brian E Carpenter <> Thu, 04 October 2018 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CA37130EB1; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 12:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HpO3I2NiuwjX; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 12:24:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::542]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F994128CF3; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 12:24:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g12-v6so3617411pgs.1; Thu, 04 Oct 2018 12:24:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jEaeaWY2PIgbq1nHB5dsKbt44A9xmG0wECojap0wOmk=; b=adpJiUucWPXWRY6Xs6xKw7/MjLlP9eVCf1PV3/qFI/krFmXEIM7iyV7GdVdoyEkaDB HALO4dsNj6NLaoOR2UUNTxD3xcZr7WVcHvblYcJdpQWJ2Rni7M/D5NwBy1Zp2ny0vsr/ HSdHs+XjSZ041q/glTH4H1uAQhwv4tr42bF5ImGsJNMf2x6ysq+KOAX4bdqMAmCGsC+B 78Oc2Ij7lTOqwcG1xKdlY1YDwauEpokbgRsknW3S7N2PvJQrbt2QGojU8pr1NVJyAhsN 1MvUDy/n5QE9GTQPia+QoEPYAVxK9l3cR4BvhD88XjIkYhs58D3d+DUgb9nmlfFlZa5H 5lZw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=jEaeaWY2PIgbq1nHB5dsKbt44A9xmG0wECojap0wOmk=; b=ZVBxvu/7Vvhn/FeB4KO9T43E9b/n/ka6pPNUXAEkAV4uZh9mF3p/BPUDFrS4J3Ub26 0E39VSFL/Dp559NyjUmKGqs59aa1FHdWa5lZfddZA3cPpKYiaFzVa632s72Wq1pl97eY L/ApQYYYv4Ey/936mZMwfE0xr1CsKtYwqA04FEbH9XQUkWBQLDMafTMlWIT85aJWPboI FWx1ML/F7MhjGfnIbf+6g3jIKbRznndhNQxOd7Qd4FldFE6qk3qcyWIXRzRExhswq1sz DK27ApkSqtWnvWbL48CDEFDJiQlS6e/XlBA8R76QeHzBoZk8+8L2vHZbEG6oksKzY+em iN0w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfohq36Gg4EEMBIJ5g+zyENYRJ5B7tmps6sufC9inX0X6d1Jk2CxD 2VIdsqa35+Kg8rd8S+yU9HMfeQTp
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV629U2pKQHU1I1whGH/kAmnjV/YM9yuzhOUgIDFOcTJJHgOcEVtxSka2TJDZBoleYLKxBrbvyw==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:6746:: with SMTP id b67-v6mr7082911pgc.310.1538681069486; Thu, 04 Oct 2018 12:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id h77-v6sm13149181pfh.13.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Oct 2018 12:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
To: Eric Rosen <>, "" <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
References: <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 08:24:22 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bess] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-10
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 19:24:33 -0000

Hi Eric,

On 2018-10-05 04:15, Eric Rosen wrote:
>> Minor issues:
>> -------------
>> As I understand it, if a network only partially supports the new
>> (LIR-pF) flag, it doesn't work properly. So we find at the end of
>> section 2:
>> ...the ingress node can conclude
>>     that the egress node originating that Leaf A-D route does not support
>>     the LIR-pF flag.
>>     The software at the ingress node SHOULD detect this, and should have
>>     a way of alerting the operator that the deployment is not properly
>>     configured.
>> I don't see why this is only a SHOULD, and I don't see why the operator
>> alert is not a MUST too. Surely the operator always needs to be alerted?
> Good point, I have changed this to:
>     The software at the ingress node MUST detect this, and MUST have a 
> way of alerting the operator that the deployment is not properly configured.

>> I agree with the point raised in the Routing Area review
>> (be explicit about the updated sections of RFC 6514, 6625,
>> and 7524).
> The clarifications and extensions may affect the procedures for 
> originating and receiving/processing S-PMSI A-D routes and Leaf A-D 
> routes.  These procedures are discussed in many different places in the 
> updated drafts.  

Fair enough. I suggest adding a version of those two sentences in the
Introduction. Otherwise you can bet on this point being raised by the
IESG anyway.


> I don't believe there is any value in having the 
> authors of mvpn-expl-track go through those drafts to try to make a list 
> of all the places where S-PMSI A-D routes and/or Leaf A-D routes are 
> discussed.  If we attempted to do so, we'd surely miss a few places and 
> thereby introduce bugs into the spec.  The information currently in the 
> document is sufficient to enable anyone who understands the updated 
> references to figure out what needs to be done.