Re: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt

heasley <heas@shrubbery.net> Fri, 04 November 2016 00:47 UTC

Return-Path: <heas@shrubbery.net>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E6A129408; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 17:47:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 qQXE5aFW_4Np; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 17:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from guelah.shrubbery.net (guelah.shrubbery.net [198.58.5.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D9661295BB; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 17:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by guelah.shrubbery.net (Postfix, from userid 7053) id 501F47C6CE; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 00:47:25 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 00:47:25 +0000
From: heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>
To: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
Message-ID: <20161104004725.GC17584@shrubbery.net>
References: <112dc01d235fd$57f9c370$07ed4a50$@ndzh.com> <C2DABF02-D3CB-4646-B869-FBCE5F05FDA1@apnic.net> <117ea01d23611$a28513e0$e78f3ba0$@ndzh.com> <CED07D95-A426-469C-85B4-DB2FBE52D14A@apnic.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CED07D95-A426-469C-85B4-DB2FBE52D14A@apnic.net>
X-PGPkey: http://www.shrubbery.net/~heas/public-key.asc
X-note: live free, or die!
X-homer: i just want to have a beer while i am caring.
X-Claimation: an engineer needs a manager like a fish needs a bicycle
X-reality: only YOU can put an end to the embarrassment that is Tom Cruise
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1ENtOjqRbDmgvrwCFGfPFWag4kE>
Cc: IETF IDR WG <idr@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, rtg-dir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 00:47:32 -0000

Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 11:14:29AM +1100, Geoff Huston:
> 2. ----------------
> 
> "Network operators 
>  attach BGP communities to routes to identify intrinsic properties of
>  these routes."
> 
> I don't think community attributes are an intrinsic property of a route
> advertisement - they are more appropriately expressed as an attached attribute 
> that expresses some desired property.
> 
> how about:
>    
> "Network operators attach BGP communities to routes to associate
> particular properties with these routes."

is "particular" a useless word here?  I think the original text is fine, but
to consider your suggestion and follow the less-is-more mantra....

> 3. ----------------
> 
> "and may apply to an individual route or to a group of routes."
> 
> I am confused - surely the attributes in an Update BGP message apply to the
> collection of routes contained in the Update. It cannot be applied to a 
> single route when the update itself contains multiple routes. Why not
> use the text:
> 
> "and is applied to all routes contained in a BGP Update Message where
> the Communities Attribute is included."

You are correct about a BGP Update msg, obviously, but that text is not
talking about an update, rather the utility of a community, which may
apply to a single route or a group of routes - some of which may not be
in a given BGP Update msg.  Yes?
 
> 7. ----------------
> 
> 4.  Canonical Representation
> 
> I am confused here - this section used an example with TWO canonical
> representations:
> 
>    "For example: 64496:4294967295:2, 64496:0:0, or (64496, 111, 222)."
>    
>  
> Conventionally, it's better to use a single canonical representation, so the
> authors should pick either a colon-delimited list, or a bracketed comma+space
> separated object.

Are you sure; a separator is not defined in the text.


I agree with the other suggestions; the authors may or not.