Re: [GROW] Working Group Call for Adoption draft-francois-grow-bmp-loc-peer (start 24/Oct/2023 end 07/Nov/2023)

Hi Jeff,

Picking up on your last comment, i agree error handling is currently 
under-specified and would need an effort.

The broader question is: the TLV draft (draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv) sets a 
generic framework, it tells about a few things that should/may/must 
happen or not (like recursive grouping, bad; including index 0 in a 
group, bad, etc.), and essentially delegates finer grained error 
handling to the specific drafts implementing TLVs (also this is under 
stated by the way).

A pro of this approach is fine tuning of error handling, essentially the 
framework is not rigid and each draft implementing TLVs can define what 
is legal and not legal. To your point, "what if NLRI index 5 is present 
both in a group and individually and conflicting state is expressed", 
probably in the context of draft-francois-grow-bmp-loc-peer this would 
be a conflict but in the context of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv 
that would be seen as an augmentation.

A con of this approach is that with the proliferation of TLV 
implementations, each draft will set its own rules and this may lead to 
repeated text, inconsistency, etc. It is a con, i total see it, although 
for me it does not look like a solid one.

The opposite approach pretty much reverses the pros/cons above: we can 
ensure consistency, avoid repeated text at the cost of a rigid scheme. 
For me rigidity of the framework may have greater adverse effects than 
potential inconsistency (if we do not pay attention to it while drafting).

Super open to thoughts and inputs.

Paolo

On 4/11/23 10:41, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 01:34:17PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote:
>> The authors of draft-francois-grow-bmp-loc-peer asked whether GROW
>> working group could consider adoption of the internet-draft.
>>
>> This message is a request to the group for feedback on whether this
>> internet-draft should be adopted.
> 
> I think the work should be adopted.
> 
> Further comments for the authors on this version:
> 
> - The address selector is sufficient for ipv4, ipv6, but not ipv6 link-local
>    addresses.
> - The authors should consider what, if anything, should be done about BGP
>    routes learned from non-BGP live speakers; e.g. APIs or static
>    configuration.
> - Probably a general comment on the TLV procedures over-all, the error
>    handling for cases of conflicting information from the TLVs needs to be
>    addressed.  For example, what if NLRI index 5 is present both in a group
>    and individually and conflicting state is expressed.
> 
> -- Jeff
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GROW mailing list
> GROW@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow