Re: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-spaghetti-idr-bgp-sendholdtimer-05.txt

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

[Speaking with multiple hats.]

Job,

On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 01:23:21PM -0400, Job Snijders wrote:
> I’d like to bring this draft to the working group for another round of
> consideration for WG adoption.

In reviewing the archives, I don't know we ever went through a round of
adoption for this.  The "feedback requested" thread generated a lot of good
discussion.

> - is the 4271 surgery correct?

I think this will be the primary challenge for the draft, personally.  Tom
Petch pointed out in the prior discussion about how fussy this will be.
We'll want our most pedantic reviewers to help with this point. :-)

> - graceful restart considerations?

Am I missing such considerations in the current -05 document?  I don't see any.

GR was one of the key points mentioned in the prior thread that is in need
of addressing.

> - do chassis/COTS router vendors feel comfortable with the suggested
> timers, or is more leeway needed?

As part of a review on the RFC 4271 timers, it's at least consistent with
"large value" used in other places.  Most importantly, since this entire
feature is a local, implementations that have other reasons can feel free to
use a larger value, or smaller for deployment specific considerations.

> The goal is to bring the fault stale state back from days/weeks to a few
> minutes (not to race to the bottom and seek sub-minute resolution).
> 
> We’d like to ask the IDR chairs to consider kicking off the WG adoption
> process.

Acked.  We'll discuss this at our next chairs' chat.  I know Sue has an
adoption queue we're working through that has been somewhat congested due to
the BGP routes with color discussions.

-- Jeff