[Idr] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-node-admin-tag-extension-03.txt
"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Tue, 08 May 2018 21:52 UTC
Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.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 20EA412D7E6; Tue, 8 May 2018 14:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.946
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=no 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 dRsXbXIg3Umj; Tue, 8 May 2018 14:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 923F712D7EA; Tue, 8 May 2018 14:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=166.176.250.254;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: idr@ietf.org
Cc: 'Alvaro Retana' <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, 'John Scudder' <jgs@juniper.net>, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-node-admin-tag-extension@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 08 May 2018 17:51:57 -0400
Message-ID: <039001d3e716$c9c08310$5d418930$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0391_01D3E6F5.42AF7F50"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdPnDjQW+EZx9ld6QgK6BMWz/sPXUQ==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/GLGAOVTqCyErCAD-0gR4VJPNNDk>
Subject: [Idr] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-node-admin-tag-extension-03.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 08 May 2018 21:52:11 -0000
This is a shepherd review of your draft after WG LC. Please treat these as a WG LC call comment. Cheerily Sue Hares ============= Overview: The draft is an addition to the BGP-LS feature set that is a natural outgrowth of existing work in the LSR working (OSPF and ISIS). Status: Major issue - no error handling section Minor issues: manageability and security section. A) Error handling comments RFC 7606 indicates different types of error procedures for NRLIs and attributes. Page 9-10 indicates that typed NLRIs need to provide the details on what constitutes valid NLRIs. Normally, an error handling section within a NLRI indicates what is considered a malformed NLRI (syntax error) or an invalid NLRI (content error). RFC7752 provides a list of questions to determine if the message is Malformed in section 6.6.2 (Fault management). Your draft as an augment to RFC7752 should provide error handling information regarding malformed TLVs (faults) and invalid content. ---- For Malformed TLVs, you have two open issues: 1. Reserved fields of the Flag field Please specify what value the flag field's reserve values can take. If you wish to have it transmitted as zero, and Receiver should ignore. Please specify this point. 2. Define what makes a malformed TLV You can do this within the text of figure 6 or In the paragraphs at the top of page 7. Do you consider inclusion of the Node Admin Tag TLV to be malformed if it is associated with something beside a Node Attribute? IHMO - it seems like an invalid content, but It could be viewed either way. ------- For invalid content, you have specify invalid content in the 3 paragraphs at the top of page 7 in section 3.1. The text in section 4 indicates how the text should be how the tag should be properly processed. The text in section 3.1 seems to indicate what content (origination and reception) is invalid. However, you do not Indicate what you do with invalid Node Admin Tags. The choices could be: 1) the entire Link State NLRI to be considered is invalid, 2) the Node NLRI within the Link State NLRI is invalid 3) the local node or remote node descriptors, the TLV is contained are all invalid 4) just the Administrative Tag Sub-TLV is valid It is unclear from your document how this error is handled. ----------- Section 4, indicates the processing of the content of a well-formed Sub-TLV with correct syntax. If you feel error handling needs to report any handling of the SHOULD, MAY or MUST NOT clauses, you should add this to the error process. Section 5, indicates deployment processing. Again, if you feel error handling needs to Report any handling of the SHOULD or MAY clauses, Add this to the error reporting. IMHO - I do not feel section 4 or 5 warrants specific protocol on the wire specification error reporting. I am fine with the text as it is . -------------- Lesser issues: Section 6 Manageability Comment: Operational procedures are changing because you are re-originating "global" scope node tags in another "node admin tag" TLV. You break > 16383 node administrative groups down into multiple tags. This added process does not simply copy information from ISIS or OSPF as it exists. Manageability would indicate some logging of these additional changes will or will not occur. --- Section 7 - Security considerations Since the tagging of nodes may cause avoidance of a set of Nodes ( per section 5), the security section needs to include Information on why this cannot be done to harm Editorial NITs: Acknowledgements - need to be changed from TBA.
- [Idr] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-no… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-l… Pushpasis Sarkar