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

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Mon, 08 October 2018 05:04 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 7CE80130E4C; Sun, 7 Oct 2018 22:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.957
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.957 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.456, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-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 4T9_cdpfgC8M; Sun, 7 Oct 2018 22:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F011128B14; Sun, 7 Oct 2018 22:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2915; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1538975079; x=1540184679; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=L8zb2D5B+9J7UQeRf1XpJVcR25n9RzIP5H+xzkBoShA=; b=fVie81tPw3jbHJu14dfwa/A7qePox6T67zXm4Y24QYtrspOm1dEP0+WG Z6eYB+5Y2AkE+VKDSTgDoqTItLh6rBTgtDhy6tkoQkbmCkiHqgBQFoKoO gNi4uRLrYmAEaSDBJsHB0PtE5Z2Ra0fAvUR+YMUYY8FofeHeczDw7iqqM M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result:
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,355,1534809600"; d="scan'208";a="182848882"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Oct 2018 05:04:29 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (xch-aln-004.cisco.com [173.36.7.14]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w9854Ssu004089 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 8 Oct 2018 05:04:29 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 00:04:28 -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; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 00:04:28 -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+nXt6AAXwnvQAExG+MAARy1tQA==
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 05:04:28 +0000
Message-ID: <59137b660bc4469bb3f412e4839946f4@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <001701d45c18$8d087820$a7196860$@ndzh.com> <800a8356a4f44e4db70f13a36c6f5552@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <8fba4405b5224a188e23741ee8b12dc1@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <8fba4405b5224a188e23741ee8b12dc1@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.14, xch-aln-004.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-6.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Pdg9j01oYS3IWGUgebdbkzZbMNY>
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: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 05:04:42 -0000

Implementation report has been updated to show two implementations.

   Les


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 12:07 PM
> To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>om>; idr@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp
> 
> I have uploaded V12 of the document which addresses the Editorial issue (#1
> below).
> 
> I have also uploaded an implementation report - currently specifying the one
> known implementation.
> 
>    Les
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2018 11:49 PM
> > To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>om>; idr@ietf.org
> > Cc: draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp
> >
> > 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>om>;
> > 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