Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-01

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 18 November 2020 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
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 E5EC33A0640; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:53:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.587
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, 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=i1uzdhxj; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=gmWM5xmq
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 IRqEpV8q7BPz; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:53:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 416F53A0BB8; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:52:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=28537; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1605721971; x=1606931571; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=6Wt3T4Sa+o+hdNUk0riwvXFbR2N6hMRb26RbOi5OUtE=; b=i1uzdhxjrdoqioRqB6FAQL7bQnQWnAAj3NOIft16ACBNnNXSEXKeAn4m iWC/prNJQm6TOO9ydoPymxGRVXoDAeEMBPI51t/4hCH1dz8OmCYo8UYuj F8BgxbwZlvozys8n1BP3ZhlFQ4J2CrePR7lSnmUl/dR/MdrmetsAzTaxz U=;
X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AoBQACXrVffYgNJK1iHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQGCD?= =?us-ascii?q?4EjL1F7WS8uCoQzg0kDjVuBBYkRjm6BQoERA1QDCAEBAQ0BASMKAgQBAYRKA?= =?us-ascii?q?heCDgIlOBMCAwEBAQMCAwEBAQEFAQEBAgEGBBQBAYY8DIVyAQEBAQIBEhEdA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEpAwsBBAcEAgEGAhEDAQEBIQoCAgIfER0IAgQBDQUigwQBgX5XAw4gAQ6TP?= =?us-ascii?q?5BrAoE8iGh2gTKDBAEBBYUJDQuCEAMGgTiCc4N2hlcbggCBESccgho1PoIbQ?= =?us-ascii?q?gEBAgGBJwESAUENgmozgiyTbIcejA+QS1UKgm2JEYx1hRMDH6F6k1OLAIJuk?= =?us-ascii?q?mkCBAIEBQIOAQEFgWshaXBwFTsqAYI+UBcCDY4fg3GFFIVEdAI1AgMDAQkBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QMJfIw7AYEQAQE?=
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AaP+4jB8PyTXfmf9uRHGN82YQeigqvan1NQcJ65?= =?us-ascii?q?0hzqhDabmn44+7ZhSN4vFhgFjGG47cre9H2KLasKHlDGoH55vJ8HUPa4dFWB?= =?us-ascii?q?JNj8IK1xchD8iIBQyeTrbqYiU2Ed4EWApj+He2Yk9RFMr5aBvZpTuv7m1aFh?= =?us-ascii?q?D2LwEgIOPzF8bbhNi20Obn/ZrVbk1IiTOxbKk0Ig+xqFDat9Idhs1pLaNixw?= =?us-ascii?q?=3D=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,488,1596499200"; d="scan'208,217";a="615183364"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 18 Nov 2020 17:52:50 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (xch-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.12]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0AIHqn19009731 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 18 Nov 2020 17:52:50 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 11:52:49 -0600
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 12:52:48 -0500
Received: from NAM10-MW2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 11:52:48 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=TTmFL03bfrs0L3o0YgfE7oWuiJomSVuRg+Whrv5sMz6c/Xs7uvdGZJ3gsyCtVT8j6gqmt2XBZf6axrx1ibqt79kGRRSOVhsjl+FRl+cqBeKgIbEFMfUQ624EPmT6T208ugMCUbnLoExEGkmtMaFSyKPtanhJzSJHQuU8dBvXDvmzs9OWQKuubMBeQ8i2R+uesFEMx5cpzoqIuT8sLdVj68oHFi2aoXl3+lPIuOrtwb301MXXDKbN1p0P+WfmtZ2rnEBO1KwleiptAI0BJoKIM2+IlCk13+znjZYQlQ8pjjVkI0siUiNMjYwyTqJy7xauH3pg1Z35rHbmW7dy11gj1g==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=6Wt3T4Sa+o+hdNUk0riwvXFbR2N6hMRb26RbOi5OUtE=; b=OA+J4M7k3lYQ/CsNAwsnZmDPQMCaccRTiR2O1G0LHKWEXQKx5CblAidIzjaXDNB0mXeom/jj64dghP1Rz919zyn0i1umxM0u4YRLo+9h07UiiL4Gu/Fy5eh60B8ZvrgXNGIpzqRF0lU96EyZhiKc4RE68dKNVIeywgxCDXlKZeWvUj3D2eZqs0vpLh5YEJLu+TvNwddTEWOWLC6KBNKzlKJrLQSv/QNyKjUv8I5yZHeeGA2J0FT9tWqohCYuH1mpp672eRViwmUeVyPcjT7aKOJfZLytqlkd5+jaCYXO86+wagxggXmqaxb01+5tbzheVI47v6qMelGnKWBvmdrsmg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
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=6Wt3T4Sa+o+hdNUk0riwvXFbR2N6hMRb26RbOi5OUtE=; b=gmWM5xmqGHjufJSO6GRVwFQFo9Ro12Oq102cja8LKsir2Zn/nwKPZNSmEH4YKGDk2jttb7qXcTZVNSV7/C2Ia95MHAcg07YCI5HW6HiHPcATpn6j4mxxqVyJ5cYvGo6Fl3pezXaE0F23HoMaYHH/UL7g+Jxt1bVLPvoT6pa1JMY=
Received: from BYAPR11MB2887.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:89::27) by BYAPR11MB2648.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a02:c7::10) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3564.25; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 17:52:47 +0000
Received: from BYAPR11MB2887.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1ddc:cdb4:32cc:f078]) by BYAPR11MB2887.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1ddc:cdb4:32cc:f078%3]) with mapi id 15.20.3564.028; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 17:52:47 +0000
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "'Alvaro Retana'" <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry@ietf.org>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
CC: "'idr@ietf. org'" <idr@ietf.org>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-01
Thread-Index: AQHWvDDnivQ7WR1p50uB+fRhKfArbanL+0AAgAD0rgCAAHTegIAADnoAgABnw4A=
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 17:52:47 +0000
Message-ID: <15F952E6-5BF5-4F58-99EF-B70A98F43015@cisco.com>
References: <CAMMESsxY8HwC7Vkdrc0Xy7ByCtuuaL3Zw2TuQjiGeVNwvcYCSg@mail.gmail.com> <02e101d6bcb9$d1fc8fd0$75f5af70$@olddog.co.uk> <BY5PR11MB433729C4A439F9615A3630B7C1E20@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <054e01d6bd6e$97b43430$c71c9c90$@olddog.co.uk> <BY5PR11MB43373225154DD06D5A98B418C1E10@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BY5PR11MB43373225154DD06D5A98B418C1E10@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.43.20110804
authentication-results: olddog.co.uk; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;olddog.co.uk; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [136.56.133.70]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 64a35189-e103-4ecc-bc16-08d88beac25e
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR11MB2648:
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR11MB264863609DB1AB55EE3BC460C2E10@BYAPR11MB2648.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: q0438OYT4s5juripaS4OoGFm1B9+P7eIU1Z6Mi+fKADUpUIAkvmNxdbqhDcvNjlrDqlvSxU+yZHM8AsONhmTCaaJChp608Ug+gYMNJM/EFIUMUqkUQSQBpbjrFZgQzDpC5BdQfHLSpw9DHBgEPNW9RTaw8JXcaHmkU+Ypud0yfiA0/IgThjM15rMU7yb3fK/2sv47zTrNEx9R4hnPnDMiqjGnwTOKMBuyGo+HnSYZcorq9XqguObydH/N32LVIZdd75XJPMTIR52Lx7s7pR5yv4eehUCikMhKRfEi/J/OHvyNkogRW5AMcdlQSpcS4OnmiJipm14ULjAGRckUyOeaMGAsISM/6ZERy7UCLxStSsuhNO7bcgpYRacGiOK/gkDzd3t/tIwAmEmiDJONieDwA==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BYAPR11MB2887.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(39860400002)(396003)(376002)(346002)(136003)(366004)(66574015)(110136005)(966005)(316002)(166002)(5660300002)(6506007)(6512007)(8676002)(478600001)(2616005)(36756003)(83380400001)(76116006)(33656002)(53546011)(54906003)(86362001)(4326008)(6636002)(66446008)(8936002)(66556008)(6486002)(66946007)(71200400001)(66476007)(2906002)(64756008)(186003)(26005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_15F952E65BF54F5899EFB70A98F43015ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BYAPR11MB2887.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 64a35189-e103-4ecc-bc16-08d88beac25e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 18 Nov 2020 17:52:47.1192 (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: M8mdd7WhKFDlHMoe/ehf5D693CcqAnwJo41FvUhq+aOtk6uNjfdPlsXq9JjyWb0a
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR11MB2648
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.12, xch-aln-002.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/2W3Cz0zOdiLvwCf-uUios3XsUjo>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-01
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: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 17:53:18 -0000

I agree with Les that Designated Expert (DE) guidance similar to RFC 7370 is better. Also, such allocation requests should be fully transparent to both the IDR and LSR WG lists.

Thanks,
Acee

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 1:43 AM
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>uk>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>om>, "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry@ietf.org>
Cc: IDR List <idr@ietf.org>rg>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-01


Adrian -



Inline.



> -----Original Message-----

> From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>

> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 9:50 PM

> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>om>; 'Alvaro Retana'

> <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>om>; draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry@ietf.org

> Cc: 'idr@ietf. org' <idr@ietf.org>rg>; idr-chairs@ietf.org

> Subject: RE: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-01

>

> Hey Les,

>

> > Apologies for inserting myself in this discussion...but as

> > regards "Section2.1.  Guidance for Designated Experts"

>

> Not at all! As you may have seen, Alvaro and I had reached the point of

> needing additional eyes.

>

> > It seems you have largely retained the text from

> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7752#section-5.1

> > - but I am wondering why you don't replace this text with text similar to

> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7370.html#section-4 ? (which - as you

> may recall - you actually

> > wrote)

>

> Hah! Well, I had a hand in both 7370 and 7752 😊

>

[Les:] You are clearly a "man for all WGs". 😊



> Is that schizophrenia? Not completely. In 7752 and now in this document, I

> am not representing my opinion on what the IANA section should say or how

> DE guidance should be expressed; I am trying to represent the IDR view of

> how they want their registries run.

>

> > What I don’t like about the current text in Section 2.1 is:

> >

> > 1)It seems to be somewhat ambiguous as to whether a document is

> required.

> >

> > Saying

> >

> > "any  request for one of these code points has been made available for

> >   review and comment within the IETF"

> >

> > suggests that it might be allowed to request/assign a codepoint w/o a

> > document. Is this really what you intend?

>

> I believe you have correctly captured the intent of the text.

>

> My understanding of what the WG wanted was to allow a request for a

> codepoint to be made from "outside" the IETF by simply making a request.

> Since "the DE is expected to check the clarity of purpose and use of the

> requested code points" I would expect some brief documentation (probably

> an email).

>

> But if "the request comes from within the IETF, it should be documented in

> an Internet-Draft."

>



[Les:] Speaking for myself, I do not really want an assignment to be made w/o a document - nor do I see the need to do so. I think the text in RFC 7370 provides sufficient flexibility - but if the WG wants to allow some other form of document not specified there that could certainly be discussed and added.



> > 2)I do not know why the DE needs to:

> >

> > "post the request to  the IDR Working Gorup mailing list (or a successor

> mailing list

> >  designated by the IESG)"

>

> It is a mixture of:

> - politeness

> - allowing people working on the protocol to know what is going on

> - an opportunity for useful input to the DEs

>

> The bit about the successor mailing list is in case IDR is closed at some point.

>



[Les:] I agree that IDR need not be the only WG. We seem to be encouraging the inclusion of BGP-LS codepoint definitions in non-IDR documents as a means of reducing the number of documents needed - so I think this point is relevant even if IDR is still alive.



   Les





> > NIT: s/Gorup/Group

> Ack

>

> > I suppose this might relate to my point #1 in that if it were allowed to

> > request a codepoint w/o a document then the relevant WG might not

> > know about the request. So if you agree to point #1 then the need for

> > this text goes away.

>

> Yes, up to a point 😊

> Even if #1 ends up requiring documentation, that documentation is not

> necessarily:

> - an I-D

> - an I-D that anyone has shared with IDR

>

> > Something I DO like is the statement:

> >

> > "the DE must

> >   ensure that any other request for a code point does not conflict with

> >   work that is active or already published within the IETF."

>

> Glad to have *something* right.

>

> > RFC 7370 does not make this explicit statement, but clearly this is

> > desirable/required.

>

> Thanks,

> Adrian