Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-14.txt

Hi John,

Sorry — yes, this looked good to me. I had the original mail flagged to reply to, my apologies.

Thanks for the changes!
r.

> On 24 Oct 2014, at 17:51, John G. Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> Posted as -15.
> 
> --John
> 
> On Oct 22, 2014, at 3:41 PM, John G. Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
>> Rob,
>> 
>> Thanks for your comments. With regard to the first, how do you (and the WG) feel about this paragraph for the end of the Operations section?
>> 
>>  Section 8 mentions that attribute discard should not be used in cases
>>  where "the attribute in question has or may have an effect on route
>>  selection."  Although all cases that specify attribute discard in
>>  this document do not affect route selection by default, in principle
>>  routing policies could be written which affect selection based on
>>  such an attribute.  Operators should take care when writing such
>>  policies to consider the possible consequences of an attribute
>>  discard.  (In general, as long as such policies are only used on
>>  external BGP sessions, correctness issues are not expected to arise.)
>> 
>> Regarding ELC, thanks for catching that! Considering that we're excluding deprecated attributes from consideration in this document, and considering that draft-ietf-mpls-deprecate-bgp-entropy-label has been approved for publication as an RFC, I think it's safe for me to remove all references to RFC 6790. 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> --John
>> 
>> On Oct 16, 2014, at 9:25 AM, Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi John, IDR,
>>> 
>>> On 3 Sep 2014, at 20:39, John G. Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> In short, it removes the discussion of what it means for an NLRI to be incorrect.
>>>> Reviewers may want to pay particular attention to S. 7.11.
>>> 
>>> Sorry for the delay in sending over some comments.
>>> 
>>> First off, thanks to the authors for the work on this doc — it’s taken something that 
>>> we’ve debated in length on the IDR list and resulted in (IMHO) a very clean document 
>>> that does a good job of explaining the motivation and revisions to the error handling 
>>> behaviour.
>>> 
>>> I had some very minor comments:
>>> 
>>> 	- Currently, when the text discusses attribute discard, it links this to 
>>> 	  something that cannot affect the route selection. Since in most routing 
>>> 	  policy languages, one could potentially match on /any/ attribute if one
>>> 	  so wanted, then I was wondering whether it was worth adding something into
>>> 	  the operational considerations section that briefly noted that operators
>>> 	  SHOULD NOT implement policies which influence route selection based on an
>>> 	  attribute that might be discarded.
>>> 
>>> 	- In 7.16, we re-define the error handling for BGP ELC, but I noted the
>>> 	  existence of draft-ietf-idr-mpls-deprecate-bgp-entropy-label. I’m not sure
>>> 	  whether it is still worth including this analysis, or whether it is worth
>>> 	  noting that this attribute is (likely to be) deprecated.
>>> 
>>> Other than this, thanks again for the work on this document.
>>> 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> r.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idr mailing list
>> Idr@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
> 