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

Sebastian Becker <sb@lab.dtag.de> Sat, 06 June 2020 14:57 UTC

Return-Path: <sb@lab.dtag.de>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3812A3A0A3B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 07:57:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.696
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.696 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)" header.d=lab.dtag.de
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q-08QMb3UQ-E for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 07:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from OldBailey.lab.dtag.de (OldBailey.lab.DTAG.DE [194.25.1.220]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA7D83A0A3D for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 07:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id 7FFEEC804D; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 16:51:03 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lab.dtag.de; s=dkim; t=1591455063; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=pftdquXWm5Cf/s+VOlH8UrcWaoqIPoCg7c74pAPH2FA=; b=Kv1jf6AIYxOS+UjKEWVcU+bAYMHTpLgkJzokPF0KrQzLrZbEvFWPZTwNq3c0zWvlNqFQLj 3Y5rk0bPZyInhCeUjMyO3s50i0aawjHpbCqTc3kSN8j739UlgEu75rMHmQt+5Fk0Gj+jgM LPN8z7tEDaHJgv4pZw2XmN3P1cmkcdeQYWQZPHUK4eEolHf+qPPPlWQ4XUBTdtsB6nd1Fr pWm9FzIKHXVXijKumWnQ/gYv9zJWOnjw5/XQ+4AX9KJVGU+hHNQeaw4OnYsp5F3ki3NJvj uVWAkb++yiqs8w2TmfgPFG94fBezBLCqhGGz67Oe0w5Kf1C6UorOs4j/MZYUSQ==
From: Sebastian Becker <sb@lab.dtag.de>
Message-Id: <C2AB4E9D-0125-4C4D-9F3B-35A22D71502E@lab.dtag.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_308A08F6-2156-433E-BE15-33397F88F743"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2020 16:50:52 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAH1iCiqYV0xfoLG5veCv1EYBPDn2UznOeKHGkC74j84FM5Nddw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
References: <005901d63ab5$d6003e00$8200ba00$@ndzh.com> <CAH1iCiqYV0xfoLG5veCv1EYBPDn2UznOeKHGkC74j84FM5Nddw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.2
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/8C8LEOHmp27qeKyVpeI8Pf3mdBo>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-10.txt (6/4 to 6/18)(.
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2020 14:57:12 -0000

Hi Susan,

in line with Brian (thanks for the wording, hope you don’t mind that I copy it for my reply):

Please comment on the following questions: 

1) Is this specification ready for publication?
	I have read the latest version of this draft.
	I believe it is ready for publication and support advancement to publication.
 
2) Are there deployments where this BGP protocol extension is valuable?
	This BGP protocol extension is valuable in every conceivable Internet-connected BGP-speaking router, i.e. for address families IPv4 and IPv6 at a minimum.
 
3) Do you believe the error code handling is ready for publication?
	Yes.

-- 
Sebastian Becker
sb@lab.dtag.de

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 2:20 PM Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com <mailto:shares@ndzh.com>> wrote:
This begins a 2 week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-10.txt

From 6/4 to 6/18/2020. 

 

There are 3 implementations:   BIRD (1.76, 2.05) , FRR, and Mikrotik.

The BIRD and FRR implementations interoperate.

I do not have details on Mikrotik. 

 

Details on the  interoperability are on the following IDR wiki page:

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy>
 

Only one  error handling issues exists on the ability of BIRD

to send Role Mismatch (Open Error (2), subcode 8). 

Another protocol was assigned to subcode 8. 

 

Please comment on the following questions:

1) Is this specification ready for publication?

2) Are there deployments where this BGP protocol extension is valuable?

3) Do you believe the error code handling is ready for publication?



The shepherd for this draft is Susan Hares. 

During the WG LC, the shepherd’s report will be sent.



Cheers,

_______________________________________________

Idr mailing list

Idr@ietf.org <mailto:Idr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>