Re: [Idr] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-11: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Thu, 22 April 2021 02:05 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 9C8BF3A0BF6; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 pp7gxvDzVhrS; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18C493A0BF3; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:05:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 13M25eXt021579 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 22:05:44 -0400
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 19:05:39 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param@ietf.org>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>, "aretana.ietf@gmail.com" <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20210422020539.GS79563@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <161903614371.3550.4745493177572934818@ietfa.amsl.com> <17A375F2-53EA-4EE0-BE52-F8B4D02A7813@juniper.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <17A375F2-53EA-4EE0-BE52-F8B4D02A7813@juniper.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/1eIDJgeCGIdqxiO-Jbi75qkX2vs>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 02:05:54 -0000

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 10:17:27PM +0000, John Scudder wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> 
> Thanks for your comments.
> 
> On Apr 21, 2021, at 4:15 PM, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org<mailto:noreply@ietf.org>> wrote:
> ...
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks for this short and sweet document; I have very little to say.
> 
> Section 2
> 
> And we're sure that a two-byte length is going to be enough "for ever",
> right?
> 
> Yep! Well, for small values of “forever” anyway, as your quotation marks imply. The length field in the fixed BGP message header is only two bytes long, so if we need more than that, we’ll be doing BGP-5, and then everything will be up for grabs and we won’t need this spec any more.

Ah, a very good reason; my apologies for missing that fact.

> Section 3
> 
>   MUST NOT be used other than as described above.  If encountered as an
>   actual Optional Parameter Type code, it MUST be treated as an
> 
> Is "actual Option Parameter Type code" synonymous with "in any position
> other than the first option parameter type"?  In some sense "actual
> Option Parameter" seems slightly under-specified.
> 
> Thank you, your wording is better. It now says:
> 
> 
>    Although the Optional Parameter Type code 255 is used in this
>    specification as the indication that the extended encoding is in use,
>    it is not a bona fide Optional Parameter Type in the usual sense, and
>    MUST NOT be used other than as described above.  If encountered in
>    any position other than the first Optional Parameter Type, it MUST be
>    treated as an unrecognized Optional Parameter and handled according
>    to [RFC4271] Section 6.2.

Excellent; thanks!

-Ben