Re: [Idr] Last Call: <draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-08.txt> (BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication) to Proposed Standard

Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> Mon, 08 May 2017 19:47 UTC

Return-Path: <job@ntt.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 29E8F129A8E for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 May 2017 12:47:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 bnJgCfovflNf for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 May 2017 12:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.dllstx09.us.to.gin.ntt.net (mail3.dllstx09.us.to.gin.ntt.net [IPv6:2001:418:3ff:5::26]) (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 0BE75128D2E for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 May 2017 12:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail3.dllstx09.us.to.gin.ntt.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <job@ntt.net>) id 1d7ocb-0004C8-1i (job@us.ntt.net) for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 08 May 2017 19:47:05 +0000
Received: by mail-wm0-f54.google.com with SMTP id 142so77097677wma.1 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 May 2017 12:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcBOaeXl907z8XrFt1VtfKn9bZvHUYR3pxQKA9jzWsPoD4DBRnz3 6NiVJ+8uO010cx8aXpDm22Lx4+kmuQ==
X-Received: by 10.28.68.195 with SMTP id r186mr10971907wma.22.1494272823839; Mon, 08 May 2017 12:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <149400686065.8457.16928207738917615877.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9d8cf31a-fc21-096b-543e-58750894a22a@cisco.com> <a9996bc76e604acfbe797389ed0d81f6@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <6a3bfb3a-fd06-4291-b3f2-abb92f70ec04@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <6a3bfb3a-fd06-4291-b3f2-abb92f70ec04@cisco.com>
From: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 19:46:53 +0000
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACWOCC_mRwMXhrQFzNKin2G4VvT6GoGMGQQiW-rss_5kRY3Yrw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACWOCC_mRwMXhrQFzNKin2G4VvT6GoGMGQQiW-rss_5kRY3Yrw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>, "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-idr-shutdown@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-shutdown@ietf.org>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1148f4fcdd104d054f088097
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/XhmWaPW9Tf_2XH4OgObOE0zzSyU>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Last Call: <draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-08.txt> (BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication) to Proposed Standard
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: Mon, 08 May 2017 19:47:07 -0000

On Mon, 8 May 2017 at 21:36, Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com> wrote:

> I understand this is not a good use of time.  But since it is in the
> spec, I would like to understand the reasons.  If there are good reasons
> for doing things differently, then they should be documented in the spec
> so that people do not question again.



In the security section: "This specification minimizes the effects of
visual spoofing by limiting the length of the Shutdown Communication."

On 5/8/17 12:13 PM, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) wrote:
> > It is deliberately kept short to minimize the potential for abuse.
>
> 128 is ok, and 129- 255 would be considered abuse?


Those are an error according to the draft.

Kind regards,

Job