IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-egress-01

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Wed, 18 March 2020 03:37 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25473A0FB8; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 20:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.405
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.405 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.274, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.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 VqWv2JT9fiYo; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 20:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 A26F43A0FAB; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 20:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unescapeable.local ([47.186.30.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 02I3bWxO009159 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Mar 2020 22:37:33 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1584502654; bh=W68B+ZftaN/VXATgHsuyRKDB7bJVE6/6cNb7v60DODk=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=eChwRzDuirgmFs0Rf63DK6ZVcloXLIb+j1zTsKRGXNhTihkx7NDHbUOLRTUZ8hl46 OGVjKUcCbk2copzO86VIRaLHHIu26vRl9e1OgAepCcpW7DHVNYk0SSmQLWDDu5EMS1 44x1YTq4kEr6CvgQoLZmeR7lyzM1oCfJQ9wYN2e0=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.30.41] claimed to be unescapeable.local
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-egress.all@ietf.org, sidrops@ietf.org
References: <158411258778.3418.757369789772046254@ietfa.amsl.com> <m2y2ry78fq.wl-randy@psg.com> <933a9d0d-319e-f6fb-4d02-82e27bb00509@nostrum.com> <m2o8su7383.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <0a489ae6-73cf-f0fd-5ab5-fec1984975aa@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 22:37:32 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <m2o8su7383.wl-randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/4W4ryrAFWsyNP6aqmBZ9kspWzNk>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-egress-01
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 03:37:37 -0000

I like that and hope it's acceptable to the community.

But it was a very small nit - if it turns out to be problematic, I'm ok 
leaving things as they were.

RjS

On 3/17/20 10:26 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I wanted to avoid "be able to be" and have an explicit actor. I see
>> the difficulty you point to below.
> i am happy to change to the following
>
>>> As the origin AS may be modified by outbound policy, a BGP speaker
>>> MUST apply ROV policy semantics using the My Autonomous System number
>>> in the BGP OPEN message (see RFC 4271 section 4.2) issued to the peer
>>> to which the UPDATE is being sent.
> but, in my free opinion, as it is in IETF LC, the change is enough that
> it might require approval by chairs and/or AD.
>
> randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email