[Idr] Review for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification-01
Jan Henke <Jan.Henke@taujhe.de> Mon, 05 August 2013 16:53 UTC
Return-Path: <Jan.Henke@taujhe.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 B76801F0C87 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 09:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8nYyNqcV6Jvi for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 09:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from taujhe.de (loadmaster.taujhe.de [IPv6:2001:6f8:900:8eb2:62:112:43:237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 753C91F0D4E for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 09:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by taujhe.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BB1DE18A for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 18:53:37 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at taujhe.de
Received: from taujhe.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (taujhe.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nGcZc9xG+H6X for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 18:53:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.1.50] (x2f1469d.dyn.telefonica.de [2.241.70.157]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jan) by taujhe.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A917E189 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 18:53:31 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <51FFD8A6.4070700@taujhe.de>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 18:53:58 +0200
From: Jan Henke <Jan.Henke@taujhe.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: idr@ietf.org
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
OpenPGP: id=20C88DFB
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="QfpDkcuqlfovVCrSl41uaGOVDPksLB2pq"
Subject: [Idr] Review for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification-01
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 16:53:52 -0000
Hi, below you find my review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification-01. It is my first review for an IETF draft, therefore I am happy to receive feedback on the review itself in a separate message. The draft is overall well written and understandable, however I suggest the following improvements. 1. Introduction --------------- The introduction states that NOTIFICATION messages were excluded from the graceful restart defined in RFC4724. It does not mention why these message class was excluded in RFC4724. It would be nice for the reader to get a summary of the rationale for the original exclusion and the motivation to change that with this document. 2. Modification BGP Graceful Restart Capability ----------------------------------------------- While reading this section I was irritated by the "Flags for Address Family" paragraph. I found out that the "N" bit was defined in the -00 revision of the draft, but I did not find any RFC modifying it. Therefore I suggest to remove the paragraph from the document, as there is no change to RFC4724. 3. BGP Hard Reset Subcode -------------------------- While reading this section I was hoping to get some information about the appropriate usage of the Hard Reset Subcode. Providing some typical use cases would improve this section and make it easier for future implementations to have a similar semantics in respect to this code. -- Best regards Jan Henke