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

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 29 June 2020 14:48 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 CC2493A1001; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 07:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.086
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.086 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, 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 dP2bJia9OJho; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 07:48:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42a.google.com (mail-wr1-x42a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42a]) (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 79DAE3A101A; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 07:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42a.google.com with SMTP id z15so5558515wrl.8; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 07:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QvjOdkmajDQ1TpyyllgfKCRUOTH35f1gDobgq6Xunjo=; b=Mooo/aoKWc61Cb3zoTlFJ+ghBHbNGh3uoKEJHvZq9FJkAPbs4OGns/ZjnGsFIb0H5a Mtz9PrF/s+RVHRU0IyeJ3j/Mz3sB7pWNizQlpktnyCoOsV7y4VUCPsWM3rGfN9mU2E10 FNqxw3U7Td59nglvj/mAZNpJHGwBysZtx3w620K61Kb/dpLpD8No9kjTQlKTStPXHca4 d/GEHEs3uxgiyrqVJ2bsCt7WzmU/LWGG/kBh5HGDkrA/pdo8o7aK8W93W8Dhw/wBFBAH l7xpz5jkYex9n4KK+zWigPXK47mMOi1HemrWBMCpzVeFG1TZ/df7+cDvzPnwrbfLADGx Hjmw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QvjOdkmajDQ1TpyyllgfKCRUOTH35f1gDobgq6Xunjo=; b=Q0HN47x6ZrTOOcoc26VmdMezXiCb3ddN8zHSGa+TG1KPs29fhYAXfaBqOO51hPIf8H mhGneiugftf5tzwJ+yre06udR9tm/7B96ZOeRiIsOIdqwiZjy5+T9a4PQp1eSnaUe8Xu g3gBeseQwj/KaPIuc8CvEBLdD+ATstK+f1ekaAyT/pd4ABQEx2ZY+VSsf7ID7Bz8LiTe OF+41DES95eRUVgM0x2LGovRfD5FzVhP/B3OCnNA0eNHvNUwtH8OwT9qZmKzYei8wimF fvJht//mTqgYaxioeCfLORLAmqZFTdNYlW97IGVN/uY+6n0qJKz86YQ5iUFwCGRVfCPv eBEA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531R6fJaCANxNjD8+0bnRIoirGh4msX9sqixmQQ1vjvduGOPVRWx p50FMPQaRZAnHTZKLXB3diRVKZEcJo8DTfE2HB43KKaa
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwCpOk8xun2AD6SeiR65O1Py8uto/4igXsHWzTNleQkxksjBAZcZznyhqgg+ynBHvdNHDiUMI/0Dy/WfqD+VFY=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:8462:: with SMTP id 89mr17076852wrf.420.1593442082615; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 07:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Mon, 29 Jun 2020 07:48:01 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 07:48:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMMESsyPX_A0RZ4KqOmn6Nv8vTJ5Kgi_ha28n9gu30Eg=Y4ziw@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: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_YS4BO4UVHE502YzOmDYD_2_8HQ>
Subject: [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: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 14:48:18 -0000

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.