Re: [Idr] IPR call for draft-ietf-idr-rpd-11.txt (7/23 to 8/6/2021)

I support this draft and believe it is useful. However, I think the
wording in the specification of the IP prefix sub-TLV needs to be
clarified. See below for my comments on that wording and on a few
other minor points.

Section 4.1:

On the Distinguisher, to avoid ambiguity on what lower/smaller and
higher/larger mean I suggest
"4 octet value" -> "4 octet unsigned integer that"

MP_Reach_NLRI -> MP_REACH_NLRI

Section 4.2.1:

I found the specification of the IP prefix sub-TLV confusing. The
document says that the "Mask" field is "1 octet for mask length". That
combined with the first example makes it reasonably clear that the
M-Type=0 is an exact match on the "Mask" number of prefix bits in the
IP address given in the sub-TLV with the IP address being tested.
Assuming my interpretation is correct and following the usual IETF
convention, where unused fields are sent as zero and ignored on
receipt, my first suggested changes are as follows:
OLD
   M-Type:  4 bits for match types, four of which are defined:

      M-Type = 0:  Exact match.
NEW
   M-Type:  4-bit field specifying match type. The following four
values are defined:

      M-Type = 0:  Exact match with the Mask length IP address prefix.
GeMask and LeMask MUST be sent as zero and ignored on receipt.
OLD
   Mask:  1 octet for the mask length.
NEW
   Mask:  1 octet for the IP address prefix length.

M-Type=1 is considerably more confusing. We now have, I assume, two
prefix lengths: Mask and GeMask. And we have two IP addresses, the
sub-TLV IP address and the IP address being tested. I cannot figure
out from the draft which mask is applied to which IP address and
exactly what "greater than" comparison is being made. The terse
example does not help me. The same comments apply to M-Type=2.
M-Type=3 is even more complex; there are 3 masks, two IP addresses,
and, presumably, two comparisons... I think the text here should be
made clearer and more explicit

Section 9.1:

Delete all occurrences of the word "new". Drafts should use the
wording desired in the final RFC. These values are not "new" anymore.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 1:23 PM Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
>
> This begins a 2 week WG last call on draft-ietf-idr-rpd-11.txt.
>
>
>
> There is one missing IPR statement from Liang Ou.
>
> Liang should send the IPR statements in response to this WG LC.
>
>
>
> The implementation report is at:
>
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-rpd%20impolementations%20
>
>
>
> The two implementations are different implementations from Huawei.
>
>
>
> This document describes BGP Extensions for Routing
>
>    Policy Distribution (BGP RPD) to support this.
>
>
>
> Please consider in your review of this draft:
>
> 1) if this draft is ready for deployment,
>
> 2) if the BGP extensions for routing policy distribution
>
> Help deployments of BGP in the Internet.
>
>
>
> Cheerily, Susan Hares
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr