Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification - 1 week call for comments on early adoption (3/21 to 3/30)

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Thu, 23 March 2017 21:09 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 EDF72131677 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 14:09:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 ohL-aUDF5C6L for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 14:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09446129C11 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 14:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=15059; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1490303391; x=1491512991; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=sEK+nPWL0VRG+n/Gjg9TrZwDe+ZqxFtNjacTnGRCI5A=; b=QBHwWKiHDLbam5BlQjHba7zCMQkJ/h9Yau6bNTEtShZprPVfGRmc4/LU Svq1/CN7HvjKLLP21dDGyuvx1VqDP6VyIttQlar/9e44Nvintwh4GdILm fsMRemKCV76211tkn13IDhCwmvllGUhZcmu7j0anSaxrWFup1OrKCDYbH w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AmAQBLONRY/5tdJa1eGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgm5jYYELB41qkU+QGYUwgg6GIgKDGD8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFFQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEDHRBKAhACAQgOAwMBAQEkBAcyFAkIAQEEAQ0FigasYIpGAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHYs9hHQWhS8BBI9eQYw2AZJJgXuFKooKiFeLCgEfOIEEWRV?= =?us-ascii?q?BPIRSgUp1iHyBDQEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,211,1486425600"; d="scan'208,217";a="213722576"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 Mar 2017 21:09:50 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (xch-rtp-001.cisco.com [64.101.220.141]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v2NL9o1n002879 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 23 Mar 2017 21:09:50 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (64.101.220.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:09:49 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:09:49 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification - 1 week call for comments on early adoption (3/21 to 3/30)
Thread-Index: AdKjYemMcYaL/ySSRFieixhO0TATbgAAkkqAADFYwgD//+BtAA==
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 21:09:49 +0000
Message-ID: <D4F9B15A.A3E32%acee@cisco.com>
References: <01c101d2a362$9b0feb80$d12fc280$@ndzh.com> <D4F88000.A3C18%acee@cisco.com> <009901d2a408$0f727a60$2e576f20$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <009901d2a408$0f727a60$2e576f20$@ndzh.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D4F9B15AA3E32aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Jkx8SB6HO_8blNEEwySe45HKwRc>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification - 1 week call for comments on early adoption (3/21 to 3/30)
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: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 21:09:54 -0000

Hi Sue,
Sounds good. I will follow up on Cisco implementation or intent to implement. Independent of our BGP roadmap, I would support allocation if anyone is interested in implementing it since I believe it is a useful extension.
Thanks,
Acee

From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>>
Date: Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 3:02 PM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>, IDR List <idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>>
Cc: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com<mailto:aretana@cisco.com>>
Subject: RE: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification - 1 week call for comments on early adoption (3/21 to 3/30)

Acee:

You raise a good point.  John and I debated the topic earlier this week.  However, since one of the co-chairs is a co-author, we decided it was best to review until 3/30.   John made the point that he cannot change the draft until 3/27, and Alvaro will need the changed draft for IANA.   Alvaro is copied, and I will talk to IANA to make sure they can process this quickly.

Could you help us update the implementation part for cisco?

Sue


From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 7:30 PM
To: Susan Hares; idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification - 1 week call for comments on early adoption (3/21 to 3/30)

Hi Sue,

Since early code point assignment is a topic in another thread and the specter of bureaucracy was raised, I'd like to question as to why we need an early adoption call?  Since the document  has already been accepted as a WG document and there is implementation interest, isn't that enough to warrant early code point adoption?

Thanks,
Acee

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>>
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 7:18 PM
To: IDR List <idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>>
Subject: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification - 1 week call for comments on early adoption (3/21 to 3/30)

Greetings IDR:

As John Scudder notes draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification-10.txt  will be changed to have no suggested value.


   IANA is requested to assign a new subcode in the "BGP Cease
   NOTIFICATION message subcodes" registry.  The suggested name for the
   code point is "Hard Reset".  The suggested value is 9.

Given this change, the IDR WG is asked to consider early code-point adoption for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification, and any additions they wish to make on the last WG LC (which found consensus).   With more details on 2 implementations (Cisco and Juniper), this will be forwarded to the IESG.  If you wish to send any additional comments, since John is a co-authors - please send them to me or to Jie Dong.   Jie will provide me a summary of comments he's received.

Will Cisco and Juniper people, please update the wiki page on the implementation.   The authors an provide a section in the draft (if they wish) with implementation - which will be removed before publication.

Sue Hares