Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-10.txt (6/4 to 6/18) - WG LC completed, awaiting -12.txt

Alex and Brian: 

If you add any new limitations, this will need to go back through WG LC. 

However, WG LC is only 2 weeks (if no changes are made).   If you think it is required, then add it now – before I put in my shepherd’s repor.t 

Sue 

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Azimov
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 4:13 PM
To: Brian Dickson
Cc: IDR; Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed); Susan Hares
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-10.txt (6/4 to 6/18) - WG LC completed, awaiting -12.txt

Brian,

I don't feel it's good to add any limitations aka stripping. Roles are negotiated, that is their main idea.

And we already have an allocation policy for future roles:

   The allocation policy for new entries up to and including
   value 127 is "Expert Review" [RFC5226].  The allocation policy for
   values 128 through 251 is "First Come First Served".  The values from
   252 through 255 are for "Experimental Use".

пн, 6 июл. 2020 г. в 22:49, Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>:

On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 11:24 AM Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <kotikalapudi.sriram=40nist.gov@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

Hi Gyan,

You wrote:
"In the context of keeping the door open for future internal roles as the
reader would be confused when reading “any” meaning iBGP, however internal
roles don’t exist today.  My recommendation would be to update the draft to
say “any” when the internal roles are explicitly defined.  That could be
done anytime when you have fully vetted the internal role concept and the
draft is updated accordingly."

Would the following substitution take care of your concern?

Current text: BGP Role is a new configuration option that can
be configured on any BGP session.

New text: This document specifies a new configuration option
BGP Role that is intended to be used with eBGP.
However, in the future, the applicability of BGP Role
can be extended to iBGP when suitable internal roles are defined.

As an alternative, maybe change the text so that it references an IANA table, and have the new table introduced via the IANA Actions section, with particulars about how new table entries get added?

Allow for private roles as well as new standard roles, with details on what to do with private roles (if private roles are defined/allowed), e.g. strip or substitute on announcement via eBGP.

Or just have the well-defined roles table only, and require standards action to add table entries with reference to RFCs in the table.

Brian

Thanks.

Sriram

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

-- 

Best regards,

Alexander Azimov