Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-20

Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com> Tue, 07 March 2017 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <enkechen@cisco.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 B61B712959B; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:45:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 52zM_uFgVPbS; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:45:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77D69129467; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:45:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1413; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1488912324; x=1490121924; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zREL1chkkdssh8yLd1DdX8WbYfadIFr4CWZcWjYvp4s=; b=aC2aLIW7ba1vlJrz8GLpV7mn/rw3c2omKE3i+nuMns1eoAz0UQ95q2CA k+Ak+CCh9sf8nqU6FhtjT+m8zCmQK+aM+MdtauT09G/EGh/Cj+Syusgcj uS/bnaHzLWh2cmmhX+hZ26F/gXg3bseif428neWLhin1ynjYot/NQdvTw w=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,258,1486425600"; d="scan'208";a="215460846"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Mar 2017 18:45:24 +0000
Received: from [10.24.73.40] ([10.24.73.40]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v27IjMIC027393; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 18:45:22 GMT
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
References: <DAEE98CC-8483-499E-B71C-FE4C6FC15A4A@cisco.com> <20170228210627.GB17448@pfrc.org> <3eb4d853-1d44-6250-c70a-26f60eac39e6@cisco.com> <006e01d296db$a7c4c320$f74e4960$@ndzh.com> <CA+b+ERmddHoq+4FmU+Ct3MhH46om8yUt69EoQMyLnzweHF=JgQ@mail.gmail.com> <010101d2974a$8520d060$8f627120$@ndzh.com> <CA+b+ERnejrof2dfvb4YuKpWieLxWOF7mTXkZpaOgJc=y=2V+XA@mail.gmail.com> <018c01d29756$c8b4f610$5a1ee230$@ndzh.com> <CA+b+ER=r6tF3t-THjN_zz5hOLETRV5MjpcoEo+79exeafWBNfQ@mail.gmail.com> <01b301d29758$180458e0$480d0aa0$@ndzh.com>
From: Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <e2fd2bc1-94fa-66fb-e2f0-668ee5a1f1a1@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 10:45:22 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <01b301d29758$180458e0$480d0aa0$@ndzh.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_hHeMxMKVo1dApEqqVGTjVoYX1g>
Cc: 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org>, 'Robert Raszuk' <robert@raszuk.net>, idr-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-20
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 18:45:25 -0000

Hi, Folks:

o There is no extra work for a receiver to cover message types other than UPDATE.
o There is a little bit work for a sender that wishes to send a large OPEN (e.g.,
  using the prior capability and possibly subsequent NOTIFICATION).

Additionally, I do not see a need to touch on the FSM specified in RFC 4271 even
in the case of sending a large OPEN, which potentially may involve two separate
consecutive sessions but each session would just follow the existing FSM.

Thanks.   -- Enke

On 3/7/17 7:32 AM, Susan Hares wrote:
> Robert:
> 
> <individual contributor’s hat on>
> 
> Yep  - Easier to just include all messages.  
> 
>  
> 
> Sue
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*rraszuk@gmail.com [mailto:rraszuk@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert Raszuk
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 7, 2017 10:33 AM
> *To:* Susan Hares
> *Cc:* Randy Bush; Enke Chen; Jeffrey Haas; Alvaro Retana (aretana); idr-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages@ietf.org; idr wg
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-20
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Sue,
> 
>  
> 
>> My suggestion is to include all messages including future messages if approved.  
> 
>  
> 
> Ahh then it is great - we are in sync ! 
> 
>  
> 
> My other comments were just an opinion ... but if it is easier to extend all messages then perfect. 
> 
>  
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> R.
> 
>  
> 
>  
>