IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-04

John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> Wed, 16 October 2019 22:33 UTC

Return-Path: <jgs@juniper.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 8E637120914; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 15:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 lAOVYLyYyErE; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 15:32:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com [67.231.152.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 625D8120137; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 15:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108160.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id x9GMW6g3029042; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 15:32:44 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=jeg82r15EkOrqcDLTnC/rIm8M5oS5v/vgUA4mELVYTs=; b=Udd9ch3rauzapZ1JpWfI+elBbZw+eWlw9t+mRHpH2XXtMUHK01TADF3Tfioa3nDPhuTv 1SVm8I7YTkHggMc43fAz0UYXuS5SMJJoTwd10EDJ8jv/E+tjjsztdv5SUybl5pEJfR6u jhw2oQUW/trlqp0Tvi+V4GSmi4hIv1VOZvUpVFVVSLlq+eWlIRyGBHg3X7fRCLcSwx7I GUnD2SE4w0O/7vLNVa+6ZDTBaXub3aiFQTZVnp+szHOPco7XmEGJ9lNLdhpq6xLeKdxz PgSHvtDWNgLbM3qX/4crNKR9oP5rGj8CK3ISbKucAtsNr50aypVcdJ/oDOvmaRCFI9ov Xw==
Received: from nam04-co1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam04lp2057.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.45.57]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2vp4qx0uve-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 16 Oct 2019 15:32:43 -0700
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=XPrbN+cmzIZjCz6ENcrbGwYgcilsnfPkEeVbsNdbRXB/Z0bEjpJjyDeEKl8TLPIp04eV7BPx0yUF9MSAutd1ksnmAxvnzH8ajYIlVP8Muk0M0HP8IdAZjhaGUviNh7+lZVP6aHXk6/dX82VaGFVctqdj7a3Tsc/5lcUgajAaQ0vthdeCv7yVjbajtJDQdqHvRTwwK4UTZ8Mvx4B4MREYGUXYgDibPHh8xbgUOd3o2a6VvXsw+CVustLyHOXIkAI3QQQi8zQ+TMOEhaad9PDD+TlCIwC4MX/WzROYLEJPsJMyxAx3/Bj6DnvxSAiQv0NM1bZGT3UPSiq5Xkp27xAbqw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=jeg82r15EkOrqcDLTnC/rIm8M5oS5v/vgUA4mELVYTs=; b=DHmbn25ijAOXN0+Qgse0Id2cHq0R3fFWjx1anCItSF6vtuIQnaIS+M6pYQVqEuZPhUGUi6ZSAMN/difUScO0amOs7UmSzmdD/mVC6QKOVrT2EP7oi5MhObqaZAbYQlCZ+fKKuF951FoonV0xf4kRQIJAadnzP+1pAkU1TjF4q4/WjwzFotuZfYXAbxeEXMCCFWb37hvcImzKd79anRjySXFZmo4COPyeIM9Mw6bcklisrzzSYhR8wb1S3uf/Li3OKeXdVXfdJ9/QraTPdX6t5co85SGS7pnPB9tvhKnHuH2/66R7+eagmq/QlCfkfSdq6tk00pAIanzEPiQFbru6Sw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=juniper.net; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=juniper.net; dkim=pass header.d=juniper.net; arc=none
Received: from SN6PR05MB4127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.135.66.161) by SN6PR05MB5424.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.135.109.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2347.11; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:32:40 +0000
Received: from SN6PR05MB4127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::dc00:b7dc:752b:d0cb]) by SN6PR05MB4127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::dc00:b7dc:752b:d0cb%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2367.016; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:32:39 +0000
From: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
To: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>
CC: "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-04
Thread-Index: AQHVeGC+/1eekAMR1kygBE2Y2CPh1qdd8ngA
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:32:39 +0000
Message-ID: <22F10988-DB4D-4C2A-A2DA-D677CE396122@juniper.net>
References: <156993847735.23764.10465895063455957174@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <156993847735.23764.10465895063455957174@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [162.225.191.79]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c40f5b47-2dfe-4f50-ba76-08d75288c0c9
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: SN6PR05MB5424:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <SN6PR05MB54247A7C4FD1393EBA92BCE3AA920@SN6PR05MB5424.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 0192E812EC
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(376002)(39860400002)(346002)(396003)(366004)(136003)(199004)(189003)(6512007)(66946007)(76116006)(91956017)(25786009)(66066001)(229853002)(6436002)(1411001)(86362001)(5660300002)(6486002)(4326008)(8676002)(2906002)(81156014)(81166006)(8936002)(36756003)(256004)(14444005)(66446008)(64756008)(66556008)(66476007)(478600001)(54906003)(7736002)(6916009)(99286004)(3846002)(6116002)(26005)(102836004)(53546011)(71190400001)(71200400001)(476003)(316002)(186003)(33656002)(6246003)(486006)(6506007)(305945005)(11346002)(14454004)(446003)(76176011)(2616005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:SN6PR05MB5424; H:SN6PR05MB4127.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: ipCabOnzAMp6ezl8x3bigQ7md8OzM2+x8mF0VYBPWb6juybAzbMgChK7zCyzhwfwvBlQAU4Zrsb8PTtU3m2XnbywOop4g3YW6G7AfsHG5iSZp7sBe7AGDGjEi3KyrLd7rXfcC0Xz7znXNcooPT2E3YORLrtdHADQe5JzHG0P9ySv0hIjd4vkeAQ8f9QaA+8rlSluMtb1RoUsOFohqZs76OLZD8jnXs1A9taMX9gVKW+jrz43fZrkjFZ4XRWgptGgkBMQvOwIqtJSciHaX9sy/gFsmTBzc88kmM6/VSNux7HCqsshXfyJ8RwOKixU1AsR+8DCBdfiTUYnD6TJPi7IPn0gXFGGwj/c+7ohOUthlPJUyE3cNKMUSCpvR/IPLV8xYjrX7OjxbYE9/axZM13IkXZ8yb8L1yOuQ6Pc9jB+G1I=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <FC8C4D50FEDBBD4C9F9D04B601A58B42@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c40f5b47-2dfe-4f50-ba76-08d75288c0c9
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 16 Oct 2019 22:32:39.8860 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: TgPUMVXjoXez3M/hc+krzxRrWcj5r7N2jNoH8QZpuLxVKuXVCxQscZhKVdbOu7OR
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN6PR05MB5424
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.95,1.0.8 definitions=2019-10-16_08:2019-10-16,2019-10-16 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1011 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=999 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1908290000 definitions=main-1910160185
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/UYfXtFeZqvMKfUyAqHNoSrHHqaM>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-04
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: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:33:01 -0000

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your review. We’ve just uploaded version -05 that takes into account your feedback. Some comments below.

> On Oct 1, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Dan Romascanu via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review result: Has Issues
> 
> This document defines an enhancement to the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message
> "Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for operators to
> transmit a short freeform message to describe why a BGP session was shutdown or
> reset.  This document updates RFC 4486 and obsoletes RFC 8203 by defining an
> Extended BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication to improve communication
> using multibyte character sets.
> 
> It's clear and rather straightforward, so a full RFC 5706 review would not
> apply. However, I have some questions and issues that I would suggest to be
> clarified before advancement and approval.
> 
> 1. The document will obsolete, if approved, [RFC 8203]. The rationale for this
> change is currently relegated in Appendix B. I suggest to be moved up forward
> in the document, in the introduction section.

We didn’t want to hoist all of Appendix B up into the main text because in the long run, it seems better to keep the main body of the document down to just the facts an implementor needs to know. However, we did add a pointer to Appendix B in the introduction.

> 2. The 'Changes to RFC 8203' section should include an explicit list of the
> changes such as length field and usage of multibyte character sets.

Done, in Appendix B. The only actual change is the permitted length, multibyte character sets were previously supported.

> 3. I do not know how widely deployed RFC 8203 may be, but we cannot exclude
> that some versions do exist out there. I suggest that the Operational
> Considerations sections include some information about what caution need to be
> taken by the operators when migrating from supporting RFC 8203 to the new RFC.

New text added per your suggestion.

> 4. What does 'an invalid length value' mean in 'Error Handling' now? Previously
> RFC 8203 had a requirement that 'The length value MUST range from 0 to 128
> inclusive.' This does not exist any longer now.

Good point! Fixed.

Thanks,

—John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email