Re: [Idr] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-21.txt

Christoph Loibl <> Thu, 16 April 2020 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D197C3A1133 for <>; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 14:29:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HDDIwbOyyL2u for <>; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 14:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:858:58::22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E65A83A0A8E for <>; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 14:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=rev1; h=References:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type :Message-Id:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=ejcAX+oUYWe5OsiTqnoHr22PIX+ScTL2CgAo/eWumwI=; b=EqY3kQz9MoXNy2zjmpJYgXZpcu +SaX3xZaWSn/pVSwDUWvFrYOf9jiS+xjPCVoKhfUl1agZl7JfxGWC5QDkwmIkjq91KZ9mu+AzcCEW M4nrzPNPF7ZT60Col1CPIYjcnQolJENoR06M3bpfhx5I2wU7IjNIUyVDY8ztltncRDtDA8mbGC5kN ZrSYzbVxuK71MD1K3nYHd2fdEBFHIREtzhFeY1ucPVi8CdqJstWrD9zihL5Hh+OYnTNXy13UO3EzU Qjotld5WDxNnia8DVIP7/uNPPSB1lU1NZ0HyqdGmn8rz4uGG+thKXltN3dZVwJt7RRT2SVrEYq4hi njl5EKmw==;
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <>) id 1jPC4M-000PiH-VZ; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 23:29:14 +0200
From: Christoph Loibl <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9D8890DC-0A06-4BC1-886F-DA54C59B998A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.\))
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 23:29:09 +0200
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: IDR List <>
To: Alvaro Retana <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
X-Scanned-By: primary on (; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 23:29:11 +0200
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-21.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 21:29:20 -0000

Hi Alvaro,

I have taken some notes about this change in github which I did not send out yet:

The original suggestion for this change this was from:

Reviewer: Gyan Mishra

Nits/editorial comments:
7. Traffic Filtering Actions
This document defines a minimum set of Traffic Filtering Actions that
it standardizes as BGP extended community values [RFC4360]

Any mention of [RFC4360] should be updated with [RFC7153] IANA Registries for BGP Extended Communities.

This is from the notes on github that will go with the changes (tomorrow):

Since the paragraph is about the value not the BGP extended community itself I think this is feasible. However there is another Section 7.4. with a reference to RFC 4360 this is about technical aspects and encoding into the extended community values (pointing directly to sections of RFC 4360). I think this reference should not be changed.

However I have no strong opinion about the change in section 7. both documents are closely related one about the technical aspects (this is why I did not change section 7.4) and the other about organisation of the codepoints/values.

I can revert this reverence to point to RFC4360 again (which it initially did).


Christoph Loibl | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 |

> On 16.04.2020, at 23:16, Alvaro Retana <> wrote:
> Hi!
> Just a counter-nit.
> In §7, the reference to rfc4360 (where the extended communities are defined) shouldn’t have changed to rfc7153 (a reorganization of the registries).
> Perhaps s/standardizes as BGP extended community values [RFC7153]/standardizes as BGP extended communities [RFC4360]
> Thanks!
> Alvaro.
> On April 16, 2020 at 5:11:44 PM, Christoph Loibl ( <>) wrote:
>> I just uploaded the -21(!) revision of the rfc5575bis draft to correct the nits pointed out by the latest reviews.