Re: [Idr] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Thu, 08 October 2020 12:43 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
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 5147E3A0AD4; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 05:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=Kp2jknYf; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=KzNiQPBA
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 OX0hW72w8ZLH; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 05:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E92EE3A0ABD; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 05:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4327A91; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 08:43:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 08 Oct 2020 08:43:08 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm1; bh=1 H8gzd2ZvBdkdz8iKxRf0/iFevOsX64taHrD0J1Sz5U=; b=Kp2jknYftsWHbUETU B+tU/v/nVkWDLqdnf/QXCTf6MeRqiw0kVcowCp/gpAMUyNqNFcLeQa/F1gM4pw13 2AigphODkix75YHb4A3vNElX10iNNevcdTIFmrEAYsEFSLM1bGXfCX/9hfrxG9UT fIe6OAalx8UDevPaxbpii8ND2TzB04uqGTZSsZTCUUCbhzFGH0JxLA1E3c6agPQ1 oZF8mY6hXtFvVybiAfomF+EBws3bbtWIjE+spyHDKFwdFNMB9fUaa/2LT+SEtNc7 FXDs+ScEMiUntoBKAV8HhDspwqbqkEHN5LzFKiY7+dfbE/jlQbeWtLMr4UbzJTT+ rOJGQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=1H8gzd2ZvBdkdz8iKxRf0/iFevOsX64taHrD0J1Sz 5U=; b=KzNiQPBAMJB0pUwbaiuH/d/cURf420De1wFKYQwceDMLnxoay5M7H7zD3 kE+baLASomC4YItJw2W9lvGNfMuc3E3bDCz0p/nM1uRviu3fwCwj0UjmayPvOus/ /RgMLalad9IYasYpzwa7bStm2xJW4FhJ+JkpGI/3zBL2Xjunw9DsjQ95K1lJ5u7I 3I0RUFc7epE3Lf3+bueHMaTZQQ+4xJvaPxCRq2ZHCt9OA2p7NKc4O8KZIcuV5OCq qLfnPnF0cKQEZ+qPo0eQUVyoiCbwL2VM+PxJT3h/nPoin9+zNtTyvqUJE7+KHy+E 5SD4kIzNB2dZ8zLUkssmVJ9E4vHFA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:Wgl_X2YvSO--SZZLao-zqFpUpl-ANawnUFBQX-0VzhNStqdiWud9Bw> <xme:Wgl_X5buTyqK9vOSS2zgp9WQGYH8oA9D63Vf9z6TXc2mmTrk0JfgWKwmyGrMyGmhJ ylk_GOEYTB_grA3Jg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrgeelgddvkecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpegtggfuhfgjfffgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtdejnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhhishhs rgcuvehoohhpvghruceorghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhephfeiueffjeevteeijeehhfdtgfejieefgfeggefhfeejvdehleevvdfgfeff lefgnecukfhppedutdekrdehuddruddtuddrleeknecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd enucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheprghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:Wgl_Xw-yC9KQ32yrhUm1Z1xB9YeHrf2rC9242FVIb-bZy5abDH079Q> <xmx:Wgl_X4q2q11tlrjGSIKuZT6TTsv7NSkQ6Yup2iFrsbLFoMu-H920Sw> <xmx:Wgl_Xxp5mFcbyI8KBiV1rcRvjW6SQDpN9lPxUPzaIZIG7eve6QcvcQ> <xmx:Wwl_Xym0M8gigR1aBybmNcBMR9V-5dLp0rOoJntbKO6oN6oPW6ftfw>
Received: from alcoop-m-c46z.fios-router.home (pool-108-51-101-98.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.51.101.98]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7FDB7328005A; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 08:43:06 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR11MB3202C971AD064197DDE1BC48C00B0@BL0PR11MB3202.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 08:43:04 -0400
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis@ietf.org>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "aretana.ietf@gmail.com" <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A4C6AFC5-9F7B-4E38-A4FA-91349D0A2BB2@cooperw.in>
References: <160211580198.31310.1253552691445772469@ietfa.amsl.com> <BYAPR11MB3207D6A626288B19FC942171C00B0@BYAPR11MB3207.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <D8FB407E-6B24-452E-AADD-B76A52245329@cooperw.in> <BL0PR11MB3202C971AD064197DDE1BC48C00B0@BL0PR11MB3202.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Ddm12z7nvk1rn2wFx6ljO4qXatM>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 12:43:11 -0000

This is much better, thanks. So the idea is basically that the operator might learn out-of-band what message length is supported, or might learn by trial-and-error?

Alissa

> On Oct 8, 2020, at 1:22 AM, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Fair question.
> Proposed text change:
> OLD
>   If a Shutdown Communication longer than 128 octets is sent to a BGP
>   speaker that implements [RFC8203], then that speaker will treat it as
>   an error, the consequence of which is a log message.  For this
>   reason, operators would be wise to keep shutdown communications to
>   less than 128 octets when feasible.
> 
>   There is no guarantee that the receiver supports either this
>   specification or [RFC8203], so any shutdown communication might not
>   be logged in an easily-readable form at all.  Therefore, operators
>   would also be wise not to rely on shutdown communications as their
>   sole form of communication with their peer for important events.
> NEW
>   If a Shutdown Communication longer than 128 octets is sent to a BGP
>   speaker that implements [RFC8203], then that speaker will treat it as
>   an error, the consequence of which should be a log message.
> 
>   If a Shutdown Communication of any length is sent to a BGP
>   speaker that implements neither [RFC8203] nor this specification,
>   then that speaker will treat it as
>   an error, the consequence of which should be a log message.
> 
>   In any case, a receiver of a NOTIFICATION message is unable to
>   acknowledge the receipt and correct understanding of any
>   Shutdown Communication.
> 
>   Operators should not rely on Shutdown Communications as their
>   sole form of communication with their peer for important events.
> 
>   If it is known that the peer BGP speaker supports this specification,
>   then a Shutdown Communication that is not longer than 255 octets MAY be sent.
>   Otherwise, a Shutdown Communication MAY be sent, but it SHOULD NOT be
>   longer than 128 octets.
> END
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Jakob.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 6:52 PM
> To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>
> Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis@ietf.org; idr-chairs@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org; Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>om>; aretana.ietf@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 7, 2020, at 8:59 PM, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>> There is no way to know whether the neighbor supports RFC8203 either,
>> so the problem is not unique to the bis.
> 
> Ok. How do operators decide whether to use RFC 8203 and, if this document is approved, how long of a message to use?
> 
> Alissa
> 
>> 
>> This is a best-effort message for convenience.
>> The session is going down whether the message makes it or not.
>> If the peer operator is confused, he will pick up the phone and
>> call the NOC or whatever else they do today.
>> The message prevents that phone call.
>> When maintenance is scheduled, it should be agreed upon beforehand,
>> so both ends should be expecting the cease notification anyway.
>> This message serves only as a reminder in case people don't read their email and such.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Jakob.
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> 
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 5:10 PM
>> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
>> Cc: draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis@ietf.org; idr-chairs@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org; Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>om>; aretana.ietf@gmail.com; shares@ndzh.com
>> Subject: Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>> 
>> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-07: Discuss
>> 
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>> 
>> 
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> 
>> 
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> "If a Shutdown Communication longer than 128 octets is sent to a BGP
>>  speaker that implements [RFC8203], then that speaker will treat it as
>>  an error, the consequence of which is a log message.  For this
>>  reason, operators would be wise to keep shutdown communications to
>>  less than 128 octets when feasible."
>> 
>> I have a similar question to what Éric asked. Doesn't the above mostly undercut
>> the value of doing this bis at all? If operators can't expect longer messages
>> to be understood, will they implement some kind of policy logic or heuristics
>> to decide when to try to send them and when not? Otherwise, under what
>> circumstances will they send them?
>> 
>> Was it considered to instead add a new subcode to the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION
>> subcode registry to capture this case (admin reset or shutdown with long
>> shutdown message)? That way at least those who want to use it can differentiate
>> between recipients that don't support RFC 8203, those that do, and those that
>> support longer communications. I'm not at all steeped in BGP so I'm happy to
>> drop this if it's unworkable, but I wanted to ask.
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> For the IESG: it would be good to discuss a bit if there is some process we can
>> use to avoid this kind of oversight (that occurred with RFC 8203) in the
>> future. i18ndir didn't exist when it was published, but even if it had I'm not
>> sure we would have caught this.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>