Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-06

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 12 August 2020 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.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 B772B3A07F9; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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=gmail.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 zVMSlJxpz2iL; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x432.google.com (mail-wr1-x432.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::432]) (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 C0BA53A0807; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:23:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x432.google.com with SMTP id p20so3116935wrf.0; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:23:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=aeQIz89z2pMFhztMlbDXMtU/fWXGqLNuY+Zp9JV9h0M=; b=tPDL4Z2wnu1FfE43NkyN3tLQyUqTXgYkvSB7mb5SxY+AeZMlXmfk4KxQPnAVAOe3UU nSOQSszrbW8RDMS00RavTaxffSUBi5LuTr+JrSRwzPplc5Thiy8NrtlXgo4c94iOhIqg qz69pUCgK2w2Q29844nqP1LqL9dPTOA5uZm//WXbQpNRjxkXOpFNrY4zcs3CUTkJb7bo aoLK704Pvu/kSfNji6PglZ2iybwpoP607okUgrJYZCD5+wej9tBsnCItYUIwNE6A7nWk yvhIGF7D4N4Ft8wPoGLugzoBQBeh6kdSIdouRF7CJ965cFq45OnPYp5PpG5g2h2N579k sizw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=aeQIz89z2pMFhztMlbDXMtU/fWXGqLNuY+Zp9JV9h0M=; b=TdZU5kq4H2uGVX/VQ67rGF+PG5TmttBEu8ym/+vJqPQsjaXZULWm7bMvikTuuzjUvQ ej/63+qYrd6qEQYoLhk0bdFJwFc39NonPl9KR7j10iEdaQqlieO3w9R82gn3dydJaUoa OOl+FRF4PYx0b01jWodvvxjTX7x+IW4iVfRD4UJ1aXtNEkF9UGHp91Asjuv8qgIduu90 eA7tbRfAZbJPeJ2Xq6hFzfMWSyLBL+jsR/NGYo9izTgzJjG07Lu0AsNdlCnx5AIr5MEu 0z6iKKgB/B8ERrlMACu/spW2qaAWbX7GJ48jOE4ScXC8fuRBMvM9DGUos+CmnODy6zdl JwDQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5338Fhua9iLdzHhlhJzqvxeremYN1W1qRIOLnxNCbMOWJEJIeyPM XYHa20BOqZzzWPfMchHg+pXJLA0WfEFIqvz4iOgmfw5H
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJznjumYhMCSTStMbg/HiyDJ4fAr7rkWnrZrztxGeZBi5a5TwCCJ8PeKQs4y/+KUE26FI3snVY1JKMM1MVTQsVU=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:f485:: with SMTP id l5mr566715wro.147.1597260214007; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:23:33 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsyPX_A0RZ4KqOmn6Nv8vTJ5Kgi_ha28n9gu30Eg=Y4ziw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMMESsyPX_A0RZ4KqOmn6Nv8vTJ5Kgi_ha28n9gu30Eg=Y4ziw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:23:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMMESszMZ7zQC_Qy_0C-ajtzwo4xz4Cj=nfkw+rL7d014kCF+Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis@ietf.org
Cc: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, idr-chairs@ietf.org, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ab827b05acb31fbe"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/WdZUtc1dzCCOKt8HFnh_pxWOD7o>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-06
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, 12 Aug 2020 19:23:38 -0000

Dear authors:

Ping!

Alvaro.

On June 29, 2020 at 10:48:01 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.ietf@gmail.com)
wrote:


Dear authors:

Thank you for this document!

I only have a couple of comments (see below).  I think these should be easy
to address -- I'm starting the IETF Last Call.


Thanks!

Alvaro.


[Line numbers from idnits.]


...
80 1.  Introduction

82   It can be troublesome for an operator to correlate a BGP-4 [RFC4271]
83   session teardown in the network with a notice that was transmitted
84   via offline methods such email or telephone calls.  This document
85   updates [RFC4486] by specifying a mechanism to transmit a short
86   freeform UTF-8 [RFC3629] message as part of a Cease NOTIFICATION
87   message [RFC4271] to inform the peer why the BGP session is being
88   shutdown or reset.  This document obsoletes [RFC8203]; the specific
89   differences and rationale are discussed in detail in Appendix B.

[nit] s/such email/such as email


91 2.  Shutdown Communication
...
102    0                   1                   2                   3
103    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
104   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
105   | Error code 6  |    Subcode    |    Length     |     ...       \
106   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+               /
107   \                                                               \
108   /                 ... Shutdown Communication ...                /
109   \                                                               \
110   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

[nit] s/Error code/Error Code
Capitalized in rfc486...


...
168 5.  IANA Considerations

170   Per this document, IANA is requested to reference this document at
171   subcode "Administrative Shutdown", and at subcode "Administrative
172   Reset" in the "BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes" registry
173   under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" group in
174   addition to [RFC4486] and [RFC8203].

[nit] s/Per this document, /

[major] s/ and [RFC8203]./.
rfc8203 is being declared obsolete.


...
207 7.1.  Normative References
...
231   [RFC8203]  Snijders, J., Heitz, J., and J. Scudder, "BGP
232              Administrative Shutdown Communication", RFC 8203,
233              DOI 10.17487/RFC8203, July 2017,
234              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8203>.

[minor] This reference should be Informative.


...
271 Appendix B.  Changes to RFC 8203
...
275   Feedback from operators based in regions which predominantly use
276   multibyte character sets, showed that messages similar in meaning to
277   what can be send in other languages in using single-byte encoding,
278   failed to fit within the Length constraints as specified by
279   [RFC8203].  For example, the phrase: 'Planned work to add switch to
280   stack.  Completion time - 30 minutes' has length 65 bytes.  Its
281   translation in Russian
282   '&#1055;&#1083;&#1072;&#1085;&#1086;&#1074;&#1099;&#1077;
283   &#1088;&#1072;&#1073;&#1086;&#1090;&#1099; &#1087;&#1086; &#1076;&#10
284   86;&#1073;&#1072;&#1074;&#1083;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1102; &#1082;&#
285   1086;&#1084;&#1084;&#1091;&#1090;&#1072;&#1090;&#1086;&#1088;&#1072;&
286   #1074;
287   &#1089;&#1090;&#1077;&#1082;.&#1042;&#1088;&#1077;&#1084;&#1103; &#10
288   79;&#1072;&#1074;&#1077;&#1088;&#1096;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; -
289   30&#1084;&#1080;&#1085;&#1091;&#1090;' (See PDF for non-ASCII
290   character string) has length 139 bytes.

[major] I looked at all the other versions and none of them rendered
Cyrillic script.  I have no idea how to fix that, maybe ask the
rfc-editor.  I also don't know if there's something special about the new
v3 format that would make this easier...  I'll rely on the authors/Shepherd
to solve this before approval.