Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-05

"Tim Evens (tievens)" <tievens@cisco.com> Wed, 19 June 2019 21:21 UTC

Return-Path: <tievens@cisco.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 445D112025B; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 14:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=HIBoiViA; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=s7hStdQ3
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 OhUgElHGYHME; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 14:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 968FB120072; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 14:21:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3142; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1560979298; x=1562188898; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=+AQ2jiB8mQmJB7KJyD39LEoX71YjiOguYMjpGYCVLq8=; b=HIBoiViAo+AJnaNqnHsyXJMIbxoCSYShm1e4ot9yI94rIVnhG3mlQvks ddPJmxG35XAld1549r/gAwrYZShCeXhV228FVRPditPrTVujJhSjJ3Oxa 9xpngBHvND0AIhAc7pmdJCxdFYk3GMRsY5pBu7kbvdnBC7MofPXihxtNy s=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:dwmn/xUgAVO8k+WJ4xcqlLcpZIXV8LGuZFwc94YnhrRSc6+q45XlOgnF6O5wiEPSA92J8OpK3uzRta2oGXcN55qMqjgjSNRNTFdE7KdehAk8GIiAAEz/IuTtankmHclcWVl+13q6KkNSXs35Yg6arw==
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0B+AAAQpwpd/5ldJa1mHgEGBwaBUwkLAYFDUAOBPyAECyiEFoNHA45fmg2BLoEkA1QJAQEBDAEBLQIBAYRAAheCQSM0CQ4BAwEBBAEBAgEFbYo3DIVLAgEDEhERDAEBNwEPAgEIGgImAgICMBUQAgQBDQUigwCBawMdAaIrAoE4iF9xgTGCeQEBBYUAGIIQCYEMKAGLXReBQD+BOB+CTD6ERIMKMoImjkGNQI0EZAkCghGPa4NoG4InhwYFjgKNHYEslTsCBAIEBQIOAQEFgVA4gVhwFTsqAYJBgkGDcIpTcoEpi1oCBR8HgiUBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,394,1557187200"; d="scan'208";a="577575512"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 19 Jun 2019 21:21:37 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x5JLLbQ9007813 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 19 Jun 2019 21:21:37 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 16:21:36 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 16:21:36 -0500
Received: from NAM04-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 16:21:36 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=+AQ2jiB8mQmJB7KJyD39LEoX71YjiOguYMjpGYCVLq8=; b=s7hStdQ34E4KvOA6EqRMD+WvG40bbMepdQh+mzKfJyM+cu8g4BHdAQOWsxN46yEaGJklfDUW8KYT9gHE6XtIezCBFW8xdi4lwxdDqagFc15O0HLsQD7Rv3n5xTw166jlmnhFwcQ+5rcg+EVR7fuISa6DF+81X3zVE0DRhe5IwOY=
Received: from MWHPR1101MB2319.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.174.97.9) by MWHPR1101MB2206.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.174.96.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1987.11; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 21:21:35 +0000
Received: from MWHPR1101MB2319.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e925:911c:84b9:3fe5]) by MWHPR1101MB2319.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e925:911c:84b9:3fe5%7]) with mapi id 15.20.1987.014; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 21:21:34 +0000
From: "Tim Evens (tievens)" <tievens@cisco.com>
To: Linda Dunbar <Linda.dunbar@huawei.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
CC: "grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-05
Thread-Index: AQHVIvH6yoD5cpRPP0iCJ38k+IoqcaajDrOA
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 21:21:34 +0000
Message-ID: <846513F6-08F9-40A3-9A0F-0DE471B607F0@cisco.com>
References: <156054505283.28254.9882843194956326237@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <156054505283.28254.9882843194956326237@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=tievens@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c8:1008::6b5]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c95b12b5-4065-40cb-efb4-08d6f4fc1b80
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:MWHPR1101MB2206;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MWHPR1101MB2206:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MWHPR1101MB220685B465B0A8D64CAF2548B6E50@MWHPR1101MB2206.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0073BFEF03
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(376002)(136003)(366004)(346002)(396003)(39860400002)(199004)(189003)(91956017)(66476007)(53936002)(110136005)(5660300002)(71190400001)(25786009)(229853002)(316002)(14444005)(256004)(186003)(8676002)(6116002)(99286004)(81166006)(81156014)(2501003)(305945005)(7736002)(2906002)(76176011)(11346002)(446003)(476003)(2616005)(6506007)(14454004)(68736007)(478600001)(4326008)(102836004)(46003)(54906003)(76116006)(33656002)(66446008)(6246003)(36756003)(6486002)(86362001)(6436002)(66946007)(6512007)(73956011)(486006)(71200400001)(66556008)(64756008)(8936002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MWHPR1101MB2206; H:MWHPR1101MB2319.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: TD6Mt2DnhHUeH97o8+fp3JQXqRQXu2o+6nN+4NzH+x05Js2qtrh+1utizWEWV8p7qez/oLC5ItBnPbKIXlU7U9kh2JkcOVAdLG0xPbcTEs9B4sU0f5B0fp/HAvmmi5Of6X92gDBVxCjDAV/Ks/0KjPmIN8fuIyvBoJyYsY9ciUOV5RZNw7OstyvMaxwAlQs31joKuyaTZZR3Bz4q/3ZrX1FFs8Xj1K4KwNQGuj78qTD+b+sSpHDFcJ/DUucPtZZ5DBehxGz/UhxewqNXj4S9RRnRFJ0YQlQVIfSm9oeiuTjH/7evbjoUzA5qEwE/THRsgEZxAPXPJL3orZjpwtryK6Q6V+DHQJaIrHvdVD2a2pi8pkJmb2q+d942dlXKR1UFy4SmI2jX1YjhOi/A2ehvRQnJv7aDsVZ2bMHG31JUy+w=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <18A2129F2C12E34495BEEC97BABC9F55@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c95b12b5-4065-40cb-efb4-08d6f4fc1b80
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Jun 2019 21:21:34.7802 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: tievens@cisco.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR1101MB2206
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.13, xch-rcd-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/bkPKenayy6Z6jRsVlj_VtlLRPC4>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-05
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, 19 Jun 2019 21:21:41 -0000

Hi Linda,

Thank you so much for your review and comments.  Please see response inline marked [tievens].


On 6/14/19, 1:44 PM, "Linda Dunbar via Datatracker" <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
    
    Summary:
    
    The draft updates the BGP Monitoring Protocol BMP by adding access to the
    Adj-RIB-Out RIBs. There are some unclear areas that need authors to clarify.
    
    Major issues:
    
    Minor issues:
    
    Section 1 last paragraph:
    It is not clear if BMP sender send to multiple BMP receivers  or just  to one
    "BMP receiver". The first part of the sentence says "..send to a BMP
    receivers", the second part says ".. advertise to BGP peers, .."
    
    Suggest to make it consistent, such as sending  to multiple, or just one.   "..
    to send to BMP receivers what it advertises.."

[tievens] There are one or more receivers for each sender. The implementation 
defines how many receivers it can send to.   I've updated it to:

  "Adding Adj-RIB-Out provides the ability for a BMP sender to send to 
   BMP receivers what it advertises to BGP peers, which can be used for
   outbound policy validation and to monitor RIBs that were advertised."

    
    Does a BMP sender also send out Adj-RIB-In? it is not clear to.

[tievens] Yes, RFC7854 defines Adj-RIB-In only.  How about the below?

  "BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC 7854 [RFC7854] only defines Adj-
   RIB-In being sent to BMP receivers.  This document updates section
   4.2 [RFC7854] per-peer header by adding a new flag to distinguish
   Adj-RIB-In verses Adj-RIB-Out. BMP senders use the new flag to send
   either Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-Out."

    
    Section 6 first sentence: just curious which BMP messages are NOT applicable to
    Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-out?   If it is specified in other documents, please add
    a reference.
    
[tievens] How about the below update to clarify some.   I didn’t want to create a list
of them because it could be different in updated/new drafts.

 "Many BMP messages have a per-peer header but some are not applicable
  to Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-Out monitoring, such as peer up and down
  notficiations."



    Nits/editorial comments:
    
    Thank you.
    
    Linda Dunbar