IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] [BULK] [BULK] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth fixing?

Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at> Thu, 15 October 2020 08:45 UTC

Return-Path: <c@tix.at>
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 DAA543A1371; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 01:45:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tix.at
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 zD7hu4nLIpK6; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 01:45:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.fbsd.host (mail.fbsd.host [IPv6:2001:858:58::22]) (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 41C023A133E; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 01:45:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tix.at; 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=2RsNYvBGchMFQzXfIpTPZud3spnBDoI1UKzM1jlOjA8=; b=pTKSd7BVu/hxfU0j9d0k9kLebS Ags3CIj7hzhTEAnAQ3vTBo3dyV9nQQnC65REfWmS0Ulgr7rJXLW4EVSSjq/tetWF2UfwoyyJa0ZkW VyCLH4fkHxg/Lz0f/E37L368V+dsgC6bYmyPrVECb3KA5x2FkAWH2vuQPJVX75KuEahuwGFbepfe/ Df5Gv5OSQS/GtFkhZgfDr31624hL13+pkB/P9u41pEd/MXRilb9Grd3WNORkZ3qQXihc+KWXL2Q15 cJfdvpc6PlfSEK/Xk5pZ5TnVIjRixqIAqhcigTsyt4juNzAJan3D9m1+aFcB5utpU0w4PJUZEzDgs UX/DbyHg==;
Received: from 80-110-113-91.cgn.dynamic.surfer.at ([80.110.113.91] helo=[192.168.66.207]) by mail.fbsd.host with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <c@tix.at>) id 1kSyt9-000P1R-Fk; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 10:45:32 +0200
From: Christoph Loibl <c@tix.at>
Message-Id: <34DCA41D-7CE0-4ADD-8E9C-4C61B5C9413B@tix.at>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0BB59059-C59C-4110-8E54-C86623F4ADD9"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 10:45:30 +0200
In-Reply-To: <02d801d698fe$a6683290$f33897b0$@ndzh.com>
Cc: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org, bruno.decraene@orange.com
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
References: <303E54F6-833A-4458-B3E6-DE90E7CA121B@juniper.net> <22341_1601052988_5F6E213C_22341_268_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48F82C17@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <DEE76A95-339B-433C-BD46-AD0243F72FBE@juniper.net> <3366_1601300732_5F71E8FC_3366_6_3_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48F86028@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <21B4E52C-38F4-4C94-985C-8C1DF88F4A92@juniper.net> <CAMMESsxG+ASdax1USizop-1bzYELcSdvND-f3RNEJ78zDUPrng@mail.gmail.com> <A9128F3D-948E-4F22-B000-7B470AFAC219@tix.at> <CAOj+MMESP=1EtTcuptE9xdyb+g36kDiD4sH6wSLezeZX74v2vw@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR11MB32079E5730B9B170C1ADF7E1C0350@BYAPR11MB3207.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMFrFhwF1D=j1KS5wJXzc-ULEA6Ne-n296LYvit5fKUB+w@mail.gmail.com> <57A5696C-4AD1-46E3-85C8-21867D821A3D@juniper.net> <CAOj+MMENOtZ2tEJYRUq8EXizJNZ75+r3YWFDp7yOBka_hgj-UA@mail.gmail.com> <493732DD-ADAE-44F2-A5BE-2AE7FEAA3222@tix.at> <E3FC039D-83DD-4997-AFDE-EC7DB3B0744B@juniper.net> <1A29EA15-3585-4F26-8AAC-BD926FA2CD17@ tix.at> <02d801d698fe$a6683290$f33897b0$@ndzh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
X-Scanned-By: primary on mail.fbsd.host (78.142.178.22); Thu, 15 Oct 2020 10:45:31 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/d9QFZqkueYfWUWhH9Mr0oYzyBaA>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [BULK] [BULK] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth fixing?
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: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 08:45:47 -0000

Hi IDR;

I uploaded the -27 of the document. Covering the text changes as requested by John and Sue.

Cheers Christoph

-- 
Christoph Loibl
c@tix.at | CL8-RIPE | PGP-Key-ID: 0x4B2C0055 | http://www.nextlayer.at



> On 02.10.2020, at 22:57, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
> 
> John
> <WG-chair hat off> 
> <co-author hat on>  
> 
> On Tuesday 9/29/2020, Christoph sent this request to confirm these are the changes for the document. 
> 
> The only other changes suggested was a clarification to: 
> 
> 4.2.2.12 Type 12 - Fragment
> 
> Old text: 
> /
>   IsF -  Is a fragment - match if [RFC0791] IP Header Fragment Offset
>      is not 0
> /
> New text: 
>   IsF -  Is a fragment other than the first - match if [RFC0791] IP Header Fragment Offset
>      is not 0
> /
> 
> Please confirm that we have all the changes between these two. 
> 
> I think it time to close this discussion.  Christoph has agreed up provided an updated draft (-27) so the RFC editor can published the document. 
> 
> The rest of the issues point up the need to begin Flow-spec v2 with TLV and other improvements. 
> 
> Thank you, Sue 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christoph Loibl [mailto:c@tix.at] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 2:04 PM
> To: John Scudder
> Cc: Robert Raszuk; Jakob Heitz (jheitz); idr@ietf. org; draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis@ietf.org; bruno.decraene@orange.com; Hares Susan
> Subject: Re: [BULK] [Idr] [BULK] Bug in draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis, worth fixing?
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> 
> 
>> On 29.09.2020, at 17:42, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> wrote:
>> (Co-chair hat is on)
>> 
>> Yes, agreed. This is not subject to re-litigation now, we are trying to clarify things if needed, but not change decisions that were made.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> —John
> 
> Which brings me back to the point where this discussion started:
> 
> 
> John suggested to extend that sentence from the doc:
> 
> OLD:
> 
>   A NLRI value not encoded as specified specified here is considered
>   malformed and error handling according to Section 10
>   is performed.
> 
> 
> NEW:
> 
>   A NLRI value not encoded as specified here,
>   including an NLRI that contains an unknown component type,
>   is considered malformed and error handling according to 
>   Section 10 is performed.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email