Re: [Idr] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22: (with DISCUSS)

Hi everyone.

Thanks for bringing this up. I remember that we had a very similar discussion about this before. Since both is possible at the same time I think that the changes suggested below are reasonable. It seems that this has consensus and I will take care of the update tomorrow.

Cheers Christoph.

-- 
Christoph Loibl
c@tix.at | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | http://www.nextlayer.at

> On 22.04.2020, at 18:31, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Works for me too.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Alvaro.
> 
> On April 22, 2020 at 11:56:33 AM, Alissa Cooper (alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>) wrote:
> 
>> Works for me. Thanks. 
>> Alissa 
>> 
>> > On Apr 22, 2020, at 11:52 AM, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com <mailto:shares@ndzh.com>> wrote: 
>> >  
>> > Alissa and Alvaro:  
>> >  
>> > Alissa discuss is correct.  
>> >  
>> > My solution to fix this is to provide the following revisions:  
>> >  
>> > Section 7.1:  
>> > Old/ 
>> > Interferes with: No other BGP Flow Specification Traffic Filtering 
>> > Action in this document. 
>> > / 
>> > New/ 
>> > Interferes with: May interfere with the traffic-rate-packets (see section 7.2). 
>> > Policy may allow both filtering by traffic-rate-packets and traffic-rate-bytes.  
>> > If policy does not allow this, these two actions will conflict.  
>> > /  
>> > Section 7.2  
>> > Old/ 
>> > Interferes with: No other BGP Flow Specification Traffic Filtering 
>> > Action in this document. 
>> > / 
>> > Interferes with: May interfere with the traffic-rate-bytes (see section 7.1)  
>> > Policy may allow both filtering by traffic-rate-packets and traffic-rate-bytes.  
>> > If policy does not allow this, these two actions will conflict.  
>> > / 
>> >  
>> > If this fix is acceptable to both of you, please let me know. We will re-spin the draft.  
>> >  
>> > Sue Hares  
>> >  
>> >  
>> > -----Original Message----- 
>> > From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper 
>> > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 10:03 AM 
>> > To: Alvaro Retana 
>> > Cc: draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org <mailto:draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org>; idr-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:idr-chairs@ietf.org>; idr@ietf.org <mailto:idr@ietf.org>; IESG 
>> > Subject: Re: [Idr] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22: (with DISCUSS) 
>> >  
>> > Hi Alvaro, 
>> >  
>> >> On Apr 22, 2020, at 9:53 AM, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:aretana.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote: 
>> >>  
>> >> On April 22, 2020 at 9:46:15 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: 
>> >>  
>> >>  
>> >> Alissa: 
>> >>  
>> >> Hi! 
>> >>  
>> >>  
>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> >>> - 
>> >>> DISCUSS: 
>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> >>> - 
>> >>>  
>> >>> Apologies as this may be a really silly question, but isn't it  
>> >>> possible for traffic-rate-bytes and traffic-rate-packets to interfere with each other? 
>> >>> That is, if by mistake a flow specification shows up containing both  
>> >>> actions and they contradict each other (e.g., 0 bytes but 1M  
>> >>> packets), how is that situation supposed to be handled? 
>> >>  
>> >> See §7.7. It is left to the implementation to decide which filtering  
>> >> action to use. 
>> >  
>> > Right, but 7.1 and 7.2 say that traffic-rate-bytes and traffic-rate-packets don’t interfere with each other (or any other filtering actions specified), so presumably 7.7 does not apply?  
>> >  
>> > Alissa 
>> >  
>> >>  
>> >>  
>> >> Alvaro. 
>> >  
>> > _______________________________________________ 
>> > Idr mailing list 
>> > Idr@ietf.org <mailto:Idr@ietf.org> 
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr> 
>> >  
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr