Re: [Idr] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-15.txt

Alexander Azimov <a.e.azimov@gmail.com> Fri, 28 May 2021 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <a.e.azimov@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 909F93A3406; Fri, 28 May 2021 13:05:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=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 Eu7BXRGgzW0w; Fri, 28 May 2021 13:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x433.google.com (mail-pf1-x433.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::433]) (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 1F4673A3402; Fri, 28 May 2021 13:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x433.google.com with SMTP id y15so99694pfl.4; Fri, 28 May 2021 13:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ijgyewwuaFTZOCEdwpTSv6RjYQi83tRNg9GWI58vi8w=; b=H+clWeidzno8dNrhB0EuIbbi0sCEyhrR7NHkuJCsw2FSmBCqogxeg/7NqyYI4LM7zN koZvNP2NVETU8KFaQj0Pp/oQ5ZLtIMwNJliqruUIe/Zjr6h4icbC89BJJb35BMnNvXtw /UB9ITqAgQAQjwaI5x8JQdK++Xc3rDEWBGHDiB9xMs9RCW6a6m8jRpVJnUPwKH4lKRKr 7rGxw8o4PtMUSEbrSXWWcNcnrR330eb1qTJC1DxyKpTHicB1q+GFunxmGi7x5UYEKAa+ Vjv/Aez+5/msp38w/9u7YQFwc21VWumQdCv8HcBGIcbQv0HkIJAqTA/A8QbTpQzIGS/H IpEw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ijgyewwuaFTZOCEdwpTSv6RjYQi83tRNg9GWI58vi8w=; b=cMKTIhoF5znufuLGuYTClU2U+gSVh3gy0URJLUyZhSCibNRZ2pOz1TiYWnpipoqZ0C 5Y9BtbKGs2+ips503QvhwF2rxI9kK/gYfZlJyhdc++aztdjtELjIZzEVleMGfdZ07G32 IYTVju+gex7KEsS3LYBLoJTZw3jbytd9Xyqs2pTv2Zx0o7Bkk+nxvNSk1LNpqeOB/WtO DaBzNwOmxNWhdY+SPGhpKT3+a+F6SreDgNJEonoXac9ztlnsSWDqVkQwzEiC8CLn2Uk8 1icalV6F5zG2VNkYpZDeQ6255Jzlhkt5qQPSwRsW5g/onZXkh1uA2kFmzMaOzRe/PPvw Bf6Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5325JShUNKtbVi35D6laAc/tHzBY1Q5zcb4cRJy70w3xMbeHK1Ov qPIWHLR5tLdyjuxd/fnbnbjBO8uEMB1tHWYiQVs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxS4C1WmHswdwtYov1Yq00ZYxQytGLmScsOLoBATpIRkzJglKmdf26jZQ/Maxi9BBQd75Cf40mqRKMrme9wAto=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:b907:: with SMTP id z7mr10305520pge.112.1622232290984; Fri, 28 May 2021 13:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <e45c1b2dcd1a493f9022bb1d9fff40bb@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <e45c1b2dcd1a493f9022bb1d9fff40bb@huawei.com>
From: Alexander Azimov <a.e.azimov@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 23:04:40 +0300
Message-ID: <CAEGSd=ArLeVQy7_p7S5gKfPazFA3Y9-6uzAN-ftogHMK-540cQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>
Cc: "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy.all@ietf.org>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007285e405c3696308"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/XS_hgGUAr_fRtLCWWMbhQBhWJFY>
Subject: Re: [Idr] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-15.txt
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: Fri, 28 May 2021 20:05:01 -0000

Dear Mach,

Thank you for your comments, all nits are already applied.

But it proved that different authors have a different reading of your
comment related to section 6:

> Section 6.
> It does not specify how a speaker handle a route with OTC attribute but
> the sender's role is unknown.

Are you speaking about the OTC processing in case of the absence of a
locally configured role?
Or does it about receiving OTC attribute from a neighbor that doesn't
participate in the role negotiation?

чт, 13 мая 2021 г. в 09:50, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>om>:

> Hello
>
> I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this
> draft.
> ​https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy /
>
> The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair,
> perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication
> to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the
> draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early
> review depends on the stage that the document has reached.
>
> As this document has been sent to IESG for publication, my focus for the
> review was to determine whether the document is ready to be published.
> Please consider my comments along with the other last call comments.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-15.txt
> Reviewer: Mach Chen
> Review Date: 2021/05/13
> Intended Status: Standards Track
>
> Summary:
>
> This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits and minor
> concerns that should be considered prior to being submitted to the IESG.
>
> Comments:
>
> Section 6.
> It does not specify how a speaker handle a route with OTC attribute but
> the sender's role is unknown.
>
>
> Nits:
>
> Section 2.
> s/ their customers/its customers
>
> Section 3.
> s/Allowed Role values/Allowed Roles
>
> Section 4.
> It's better to update the table as follows:
>
>                       +-------+---------------------+
>                       | Value | Role name           |
>                       +-------+---------------------+
>                       |   0   | Sender is Provider  |
>                       |   1   | Sender is RS        |
>                       |   2   | Sender is RS-client |
>                       |   3   | Sender is Customer  |
>                       |   4   | Sender is Peer      |
>                       | 5-255  | Reserved      |
>                       +-------+---------------------+
>
> Section 5.
> OLD:
> "If the role of the receiving speaker for the eBGP session in
>    consideration is included in Table 1 and the observed Role pair is
>    not in the above table,"
> NEW:
>
> "If the observed Role pair is not in the above table,"
>
> IMHO, it's redundant to include "If the role of the receiving speaker for
> the eBGP session in consideration is included in Table 1", just keep the
> second half of the sentence is enough.
>
> Section 5.1
>
> s/send a send a/send a, there is a redundant "send a".
>
> Best regards,
> Mach
>


-- 
Best regards,
Alexander Azimov