Re: [Idr] 2 week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-02 (1/17 to 1/31/2017)

Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> Sat, 28 January 2017 12:10 UTC

Return-Path: <job@instituut.net>
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 B4FD6129492 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 04:10:30 -0800 (PST)
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=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=instituut-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 suCruhGrrA6C for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 04:10:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x243.google.com (mail-wm0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::243]) (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 47F41129491 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 04:10:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x243.google.com with SMTP id r126so64474240wmr.3 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 04:10:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=instituut-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=3T2ZWv/EVvnXuNsuAq0PUn7yjuKrfP3lB93VdqbHlBI=; b=ZBaF9owGzp5eE/vYNSx6KmfWKeoAbUCR8v4RoIeJl4aLr1F6ozr0HuE9OeTlUNlZRb KIoASaJjvq6ZvRNEXRY/Ja6bJX0D+msN9qfmgYm07MmEZXcC+IQIm6eA95hpnA1JGVOw uqC+Pqf3mMut4Hmw0VQ6wS16Z9Sw+YDnJ9V0VqkzC/Gf8WSBSD0p3wq+0JS1EGqtc8GN 0jskghhjNJPVrfh3XXJyFMiqu23JYL4gAtqnOsrFolPtHtELHbysmmYy7qA/i3GgRzAo 4rPEBKuvbiAPn/t8WxQ2R3WFytCI+JGyxwxAZy7L/p9WE1ZdavMykG0RNbWsNFjJQGqh MHSg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=3T2ZWv/EVvnXuNsuAq0PUn7yjuKrfP3lB93VdqbHlBI=; b=cHARtU6ruZ9Ws3Vv887UpHtYSZiblX4ziT6sEJ9GRJGa1Wvn9Z1sFXd62wCnCYUFQN n9agIS94RefucsEZYaSuQeMkP6tGYtMJTYZvrG4NJCEBm7OCFoTS2zmiS7fGIYj7lw/c dSukAzu4t3EcIUAf+5n/DL2jvGwTJPS0aFYadTlyRnKmrAuxHom8Gk82U2EhgB1Q1mXC +l2sbdb57kk8u32K905qtd+bQwdGiLhR0DxfODFCTlgGdW897APGaO+z4Wh54YhZJmeJ tt00Cf4w8yTGI/kVH+OjAy+B0lI4Z1SWP0Myg4JDVkCyan2L7O5xwIvCMcg6/Erfg/RE xeDA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIbWO/INKD5ljBT/CqGNLrfZ5UFDKHWpsrl+A54+eCoPMjvpqucaks7BE700U3zFw==
X-Received: by 10.28.4.216 with SMTP id 207mr6525508wme.45.1485605427483; Sat, 28 Jan 2017 04:10:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([2001:67c:208c:10:5878:ee0d:a48e:58d2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l10sm12687852wrb.44.2017.01.28.04.10.26 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 28 Jan 2017 04:10:26 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 13:10:25 +0100
From: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Message-ID: <20170128121025.GB91223@Vurt.local>
References: <01b801d27105$45702bc0$d0508340$@ndzh.com> <20170127213832.GA20988@pfrc.org> <CADLW2vwFPikHb9=+V7oQ-HTQPu+s1S5e_B0x8yai8wLB-4z6Tw@mail.gmail.com> <20170128020205.GA3201@pfrc.org> <20170128120217.GA91223@Vurt.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170128120217.GA91223@Vurt.local>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KBBH-ywlTfif_jcQe1_C24K0QwI>
Cc: idr@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-shutdown@ietf.org, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Subject: Re: [Idr] 2 week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-02 (1/17 to 1/31/2017)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 12:10:30 -0000

BTW, regarding last call & IDR implementation requirements, i can
immediately deliver at least two implementations that also accomodate
the 'reset' case so from that perspective there will be no blocker to
proceed.

Kind regards,

Job

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 01:02:17PM +0100, Job Snijders wrote:
> Hi group,
> 
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 09:02:05PM -0500, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 03:21:19PM -0800, Matthew Walster wrote:
> > > On 27 January 2017 at 13:38, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I believe the draft should cover both administrative sub-codes.
> > > > [...] Suggestions of other cases to expand the text-form of the
> > > > notification to other sub-codes.
> > 
> > > There is obvious scope-creep at this point, I would like to suggest
> > > either the draft considered as-is or to allow all Cease sub-codes to
> > > have shutdown communication possible.
> > 
> > I certainly hadn't intended to try to push for a more general widening
> > of the scope; just point out something under the existing use case.
> > 
> > While you give three other examples of places that could benefit from
> > additional data regarding why the session has been sent a CEASE, I
> > don't think all of them are equally clear with respect to that data
> > being text.
> > 
> > As an example, the max prefixes might benefit from a simple tuple.
> > E.g. AFI,SAFI,<limit>. Although keeping this within even a
> > light-weight TLV would permit space for the machine-readable portion
> > along with a human readable one.
> > 
> > I would suggest in the absence of a strong case for text strings in
> > the other sub-codes that for now the draft stay restricted to the
> > administrative reset cases. As this draft proves, if there's consenus
> > to add additional DATA to one of the code points, it can move fast.
> 
> I think Jeff's suggestion to add the Administrative Reset (subcode 4)
> case is a good one. There can be value in attachting contact information
> or a case identifier to BGP resets. Matthew mentioned (outside of this
> mailing list) that this information would especially be useful if after
> the reset, the BGP session does not re-establish. Also, conceptually the
> 'reset' and 'shutdown' are close to each other as they are initiated by
> the Administrator.
> 
> However, I consider the other subcodes out of scope for what
> draft-ietf-idr-shutdown tries to accomplish, and as such would belong in
> their own Internet-Draft.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Job