Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-05.txt - WG LC []6/9/2019 to 6/16/2019] - extending this for a 3rd week (7/8 to 7/15)

<bruno.decraene@orange.com> Tue, 09 July 2019 09:35 UTC

Return-Path: <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
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 C7AE71200F7 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 02:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 L5xO-YKE5lyP for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 02:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.70.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7ADA41200B6 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 02:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr01.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.65]) by opfednr26.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45jcc85bMLz10CH; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 11:35:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.64]) by opfednr01.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 45jcc84KTfzDq8X; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 11:35:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::b846:2467:1591:5d9d]) by OPEXCAUBMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 11:35:04 +0200
From: <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-05.txt - WG LC []6/9/2019 to 6/16/2019] - extending this for a 3rd week (7/8 to 7/15)
Thread-Index: AdU1rm8JfKzi+/aVSh+TUngEcaoIPgAh2EtA
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 09:35:04 +0000
Message-ID: <23777_1562664904_5D245FC8_23777_416_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48B63C8A@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <015901d535ae$874b7a70$95e26f50$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <015901d535ae$874b7a70$95e26f50$@ndzh.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.245]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48B63C8AOPEXCAUBM43corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/C2K-X0xN28naQ9oXtPNwU8KoDzA>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-05.txt - WG LC []6/9/2019 to 6/16/2019] - extending this for a 3rd week (7/8 to 7/15)
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: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 09:35:10 -0000

I support progressing this draft.


1)      As the introduction states it, the current situation is not satisfactory. We need to improve to it, so IMHO in this case, the bias should be toward progressing the document rather than not progressing it.

2)      That specific proposal is good and has been commented multiple times on the list. AFAIR, the author has updated the document to reflect WG comments.

On a side note, as this document is not proposing a new fancy feature, it feels like understandable that it does not generate much excitation on the list.



Ø  Is there any technical or operational issue in making this change?

Quite the opposite. There is operational issue in not making this change.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.1
      Private Use - For private or local use only, with the type and
            purpose defined by the local site.  No attempt is made to
            prevent multiple sites from using the same value in
            different (and incompatible) ways.  [...] It is the responsibility of the sites
            making use of the Private Use range to ensure that no
            conflicts occur (within the intended scope of use).

EBGP sessions are very likely to not be limited to a "local site", and rfc5492 did not made any provision to handle such "private" code points any differently over EBGP session. (such as restricting/filtering over EBGP (both when sending and receiving), or creating a local context/translation for this EBGP peer ). As a result, two implementations could advertise the same "Private" code point over an EBGP session, for a different meaning, thereby creating an interop issue that the network operator would likely can't protect from).

Thank you,
--Bruno

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 7:00 PM
To: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-05.txt - WG LC []6/9/2019 to 6/16/2019] - extending this for a 3rd week (7/8 to 7/15)

Greetings:

The email list support for this draft did not receive as many comments as I expected.   Perhaps, this lack of comments was due to vacations or due to this idea "just making sense".

Since one of the WG chairs is an author, I do need a strong sense of support.  Please send in comments or just a comment for "support" or "no support" for this draft.

Cheerily, Susan Hares


From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Sunday, June 9, 2019 1:33 PM
To: idr@ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-05.txt - WG LC []6/9/2019 to 6/16/2019]

This begins a 2 week IDR  WG Last Call (LC) on ft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change-05.txt.

The document is at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-capabilities-registry-change/

As registration document, there is no implementation report.

Please indicate in comments to the IDR "support" or "no support" for WG LC.
Consider:


1)      Does this change to registration procedures for BGP capability codes help speed up processing?

2)      Is there any technical or operational issue in making this change?

3)      Do we need to pass this to the IESG at the same time as any GROW document?

John Scudder is an author so I am the shepherd/chair on this draft.

Cheerily, Susan Hares

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.