IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Fri, 05 October 2018 06:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@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 5912C130DE0; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 23:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 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, 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 ORcaawbFrzan; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 23:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FAD5130DD8; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 23:48:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13269; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1538722128; x=1539931728; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=ofUlvvJ7PNEyOcy8m92s72ZQCSb3n+RkrDBC+I9s+5w=; b=BSqsq6dJVnTAfw5BybpIVj8R/ykKUP6CyaH/Cw8NT9fgDnQp+K6Z7rk1 bYMhuvjKzdJ/Ce7bt5agI09OtHvjULiP9yKH3CcK8+H7BPBu/sX42enVS 7OUcuPcWULIGkckyAmweZvZ+XG3ccDulX6UauRvMzQCZvbOTlHdF+UdFP E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AGAABaCLdb/4gNJK1bGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBgQ53Zn8oCot/ji94kCaFQBSBZgsBAYRsAoQlITQNDQEDAQECAQECbSiFOQEBAQEDLUwQAgEIDgMEAQEvMh0IAQEEAQ0FCIMagR1kpS+KEostF4FBP4ESgl01hEsBEgGFdwKOB4YFiVEJApA3H4FMhGSJQZU9AhEUgSUdOGRxcBWDJ5BVb4xOgR+BHwEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,343,1534809600"; d="scan'208,217";a="458679320"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Oct 2018 06:48:46 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w956mkmV011982 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 5 Oct 2018 06:48:47 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 01:48:46 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 01:48:46 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp
Thread-Index: AdRcF3khifKLKTceSAqH5NWF+nXt6AAXwnvQ
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 06:48:46 +0000
Message-ID: <800a8356a4f44e4db70f13a36c6f5552@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <001701d45c18$8d087820$a7196860$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <001701d45c18$8d087820$a7196860$@ndzh.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.24.222]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_800a8356a4f44e4db70f13a36c6f5552XCHALN001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.11, xch-rcd-001.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Jo34Qr_uGQ-XAbB7mRuFa0c1Cao>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp
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: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 06:48:52 -0000

Sue -

Thanx for the review.
Responses inline.

From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2018 12:29 PM
To: idr@ietf.org
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>; draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp@ietf.org
Subject: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp

Les, Stefano, Qin, Jeff, and Clarence:

This document is generally in excellent shape.   I note the following four things need to be fixed prior to submitting this to Alvaro Retana:


1)      Editorial:
Page 3 states "Unidirectional Packet Loss", but section 3.4 says "Unidirectional Link Loss TLV"

Please fix this editorial error.  It is a requirement for sending to the IESG for publication

[Les:] I have changed these all to be "Link Loss' - consistent with RFC 7810.


2)      Security Section - Consider whether you want to add additional comments in your security section about the distribution of IGP TE information in BGP.   Even if the node inputted the data into BGP-LS has the appropriate permissions, BGP blindly sends this to the entire BGP infrastructure supporting BGP-LS guided only by policy set on nodes.  Is this what you want?

If so, I will forward this to the security directorate for their review.



[Les:] I am having some trouble understanding the motivation for your comment.

IGP TE information has been distributed via BGP-LS since RFC 7752. Why do you believe that the addition of the IGP TE information defined here requires additional security comments?



3)      We do not have any implementations reported.

Please put the existence of the implementation on the BGP Wiki - under implementation reports.

[Les:] I have an implementation report for one Cisco implementation which I will post shortly. A second Cisco implementation is currently in progress.
If other vendors have implementations that they wish to share I would appreciate it if they either contacted me or updated the wiki after I post the initial report.


4)      An IPR statement directly from Clarence Fils on this draft.  John approved the WG LC based on a related IPR statement, but I fear this will not be sufficient for the current IESG.  Please as Clarence to respond to this email with an IPR Statement.

[Les:] I have pinged Clarence on this - please expect a reply from him soon.

   Les

The Shepherd's report is online.  This document will stay in "Waiting implementation" until John or I receive a report on 2 implementations.  Please place this on the Wiki.

Cheerily, Susan Hares

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email