Re: [Idr] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review : draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-33.txt

Alvaro Retana <> Fri, 19 July 2019 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65AF4120738; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 09:26:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rF6fPoOakymI; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 09:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::529]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59ED4120845; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 09:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k8so34964978edr.11; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 09:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=r4N0hhdnwHykrrT2Z/fCGYQTD75PQgWh0WnAMUfOPWo=; b=Bazn1PvMAHJz9K7p1n/6N/3GdRdpUNagug/4zPR2+5aXsSuxqYD7mLYBji8M5JmlnZ cj4UJkoAGwdcIenl61s9APYACL3XWZ2Inot3yYeyyYVz3gd+HEfFgHJmg9byb/0bRw+B OVpOjRJ8hXUcYNiBR/zdSNbt1b1U44TPStICnEdvu5UJwf+4Urbxp3kb/qI9fX/m236x sZePlDAlthcNBCvl7XS2opmgUTUfrWOrscdMUF7w1NKL+/zftMfoE1fM+zxAJxKS8jTi crIVB5hnX7nlfWg2QB9Xd9M3xJ4CKuArbK5bduL8DeVrVV0Uk1fgxtmK4PdWUS+SnMhy WO2Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=r4N0hhdnwHykrrT2Z/fCGYQTD75PQgWh0WnAMUfOPWo=; b=KlA4qHRjncqk1SNhmuHpp4x99xunoYfzq/uz8edJYK8Mv4d+ufbv3FWAU9FcdkHgas sUslcBsFIU7KGKBMGx+HV7TJt2PPgUpUBF+Ni9GNlHEuZDCsWfPe56iY1h3uZkRd0KNp zUSI6Of4T8DPFehMSHCGFQ+t6hd6hgxC2lbtybxsIVe7Q0DhMGnFdjsbwUu54S/U3LOA kqjUcar2tNytWWwG0RNbhgZlkm6NPCY7E/HzoSUl81f0F5QuXx0ppP+CySxs+r/tKXI3 F5TxRxwnvwuNeD3uxdLOyuBhc8xiVGuEZF6YEVlK+jUMKvYZZHVZAZlW3Cq8Jl2SJwGE 4pLQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVEl+72BHIUqLho5AztQzl/gqp5bHhMm5BKezhC1DlgMfJ9bj9u GydqmCD3Px/cpHoZexMTiGL7H45ytgCY89YFGVgNt0Db2g8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwa1oBU0tfOxkreI68aytb+fvba2CDCuZOaJv1N9zAwk2nosMeX3zvX/sJGv6UI3x0fc5ahYUUDdfuutHsnMzE=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:a5ec:: with SMTP id b41mr46003219edc.52.1563553557988; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 09:25:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 09:25:57 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 09:25:57 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: "Shah, Himanshu" <>, "<rtg-ads@ietf. org>" <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000694c62058e0b2ef7"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review : draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-33.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 16:26:03 -0000


Thanks for the review!


On July 18, 2019 at 10:31:08 PM, Shah, Himanshu ( wrote:


I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.

The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related

drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and

sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide

assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing

Directorate, please see


Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it

would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF

Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through

discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-33.txt

Reviewer: Himanshu Shah

Review Date: 18 July 2019

IETF LC End Date: Unknown

Intended Status: Standards Track


I have some suggestions to improve the document by adding more context to
the goal of this draft.


The document is concise, clear and easy to read.

Since this is my first review as Routing directorate, the suggestions I

could be out-of-scope. Will leave at the discretion of AD and authors, if
suggestions are worth pursuing or not.

While Introduction section briefly mentions newer capabilities as the
reason for extended

message size for the BGP, it may help the reader to expand on the
advantages of extended message

as compared to current limitation of 4K BGP messages.  For me, subsequent
reading of the

document as it underlines the migration, error cases and security risks,
the advantages of

extended message size seems to dissipate.

I also suggest that authors address issue of extended delay at the receiver
in processing of large size BGP

messages while TCP’s reliable transport is building a complete message
under challenging

network conditions and compare that against smaller messages in distressed

In my view, making a strong case on why extended message size, would
greatly add value.

 Major Issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

No minor issues found. Please note the suggestion in the comment section