Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-07

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Tue, 25 April 2017 20:56 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
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 90F02129443; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 wiX3xQYg5acY; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 380711294AC; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 56FE61E358; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 17:03:13 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 17:03:13 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
Cc: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-shutdown@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-shutdown@ietf.org>, Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20170425210313.GP30063@pfrc.org>
References: <010A73B6-A030-483F-8D79-3498D92C3335@cisco.com> <20170422101013.4unb4a3ulsq2kueg@Vurt.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170422101013.4unb4a3ulsq2kueg@Vurt.local>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/VMHR82Vq7-NjNu1Vh2ZFqdEtTTw>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-07
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 20:56:02 -0000

[Largely addressed to Alvaro using Job's points.]

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:10:13PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote:
> The choice to 'just' decorate subcode 2 and 4 was driven out of
> operational experience with the various shutdown events. 2 and 4 are
> human initiated (or humans program a system to do it on their behalf).
> The other sub cease codes are either driven out of existing automation
> no immediate need to enrich them was identified ("maximum prefix",
> "Connection Rejected")), or are poorly understood ("Other Configuration
> Change") or rarely used ("Out of Resources").

There's also the simple matter that a number of the behaviors for some of
these subcodes have implications for conformance testing suites.  Those
suites know what happens when you hit those controls in the CLI and
preserving the subcodes leverages existing conformance work.

Arguably, there's a chance in behavior by adding stuff to the DATA field,
but there's supporting precedent in 4271 to ignore things you don't
understand there.

In short, this was a good fit for the use case.

-- Jeff