Re: [Idr] WG LC draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notificatoin-02.txt - from 5/27/14 to 6/10/14

"Chris Hall" <chris.hall@highwayman.com> Wed, 28 May 2014 11:45 UTC

Return-Path: <chris.hall@highwayman.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FCF11A0092 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 May 2014 04:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 tptb5b0X_-Zo for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 May 2014 04:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from porta.halldom.com (porta.halldom.com [80.177.246.130]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A56C11A00B1 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 May 2014 04:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hyperion-w.halldom.com ([80.177.246.146] helo=HYPERION) by porta.halldom.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <chris.hall@highwayman.com>) id 1WpcHl-0001RJ-Ib for idr@ietf.org; Wed, 28 May 2014 11:44:45 +0000
From: Chris Hall <chris.hall@highwayman.com>
To: 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org>
References: <00b901cf79cf$c4a03aa0$4de0afe0$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <00b901cf79cf$c4a03aa0$4de0afe0$@ndzh.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 12:44:47 +0100
Organization: Highwayman
Message-ID: <04df01cf7a6a$3d259930$b770cb90$@highwayman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQHj8zmFvh1jk/WZ0RLUyz06hRSFGpsr1EIQ
Content-Language: en-gb
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/cK7h4SswUAudJ82AYC9H82eJbDo
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notificatoin-02.txt - from 5/27/14 to 6/10/14
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 28 May 2014 11:45:00 -0000

Susan Hares wrote (on Tue 27-May-2014 at 18:19 +0100):
....
> Jeff Haas comments that the most recent changes reflect
> implementation experience and some word smithing.  There is also a
> minor clarification in the NOTIFICATION message with respect to
> including a data byte so the original reason for the event can be
> propagated.  (See sec. 3.1 in the diff.)

I discovered that draft-00 invented the 'N' bit in the "Flags for
Address Family" and draft-01 un-invented it.  When this goes forward
as an RFC, is this (still-born) 'N' bit then forever deprecated ?  [I
looked at this and could not, for the life of me, remember an 'N' bit
in RFC4724 :-(]

I note that Section 3.1 says:

  "When sending a Hard Reset, the data portion of the NOTIFICATION
   message MUST be used to indicate the reason for the hard reset.  
   The reason is encoded using a standard BGP Cease error subcode
   and MAY also include any relevant data subsequent to the
   subcode."

which rather limits what can be indicated... if (say) an UPDATE
Message Error (Code=3), Attribute Length Error (Subcode=5) is (for
whatever reason) to be sent as a Hard Error, then the reason gets
rather lost ?

Why not treat the Hard Reset Code=6 Subcode=9 as a two octet prefix on
the complete original NOTIFICATION message ?

I note, in passing, that the Hard Reset is intended for consenting
speakers ("Graceful Notification flag has been exchanged") but there
is an absence of MUST.

I assume it is deliberate that the sender of an 'N' flag does not have
to receive one before it MUST follow the rules of Section 4.1 on
receipt of a NOTIFICATION (other than a Hard Reset) ?  (It seems that
the main effect of receiving an 'N' flag is that the receiver no
longer needs to suppress any urge to send a NOTIFICATION, in those
cases where triggering a Graceful Restart is considered far more
useful than the small amount of information a NOTIFICATION would
carry.)

Chris

[I guess it's all too late now... but a new "Hard Error" Code (Code=7)
would avoid getting tangled up with RFC4486, and could be defined to
be a one octet prefix for the original NOTIFICATION ?
Alternatively... the "Hard Bit" could be encoded as the MS-Bit of the
Code octet ?  I guess that was considered and rejected as requiring
too much IANA paperwork ?  Or is there an argument that (other)
systems handling NOTIFICATIONs are more likely to be tolerant of
new/unknown Subcodes than they are of new/unknown Codes ?  In which
case... the "Hard Bit" could be encoded as the MS bit of the Subcode
?]