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

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 14 July 2020 19:06 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 E23513A08C7; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 12:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 d4CeWnc6xG5Z; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 12:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42d.google.com (mail-wr1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]) (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 B10CB3A08BB; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 12:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id o11so24257597wrv.9; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 12:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=IoSQYIo1yNbEFFo12JK6iujOXCSkKqxelegpthI31Ds=; b=cfzauFCYVu6v6j3xiy/GUK7sVZM5+ZLUzjJcgABaGW+W1wRxjkeoORnAONszzy4KoR TtlgwWst4bmcIoWH/s5ZiZZGQRZFb8V3x8C0en/AIg31M41TXS7q4vpx8045hStHwomY OnIng+PYUiXv7N37P2VBPtE6rKyP3Gsvv3O5c3kcMq+UejJTkBApCSgC8fh3xrYvp+JW 1aoDalBxN9ttjS1WAQWOQgBFDVQH3tP/9NDjhbnokZEHDeRfazUarYOhhaG3Pwd8yA9k H8gRXsfnKFyvNf3gKed7Q+4p5dMdQnn0xLRsi5C/moVgysLEX8Owib0MyeBHYa/KBqsM qhMQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=IoSQYIo1yNbEFFo12JK6iujOXCSkKqxelegpthI31Ds=; b=S/VrP1Zh0UH9xQLGYuBTbcov7qwCeTRq9ozidNj6sb9QVF4SMCCU9vr54i+j2OZfqy r3LIMJ4rzrQdOtSt55aG1M+PkiqnbZj77pl2TVU/V1Q7uLJBUxMOqfzbxE1CBm3p6J+k VZ7oYiIg4dTvLE7K85tW27AjrT7LdfyX+kNGT532GiX61OtDKVi+tgbaaGjKLx4mR//y I71lEq5TU0x6hsb0sgM3unyJqg21T8GOgC+UMqQxIvqZcDpJdABo9jlUsMaVp9OwJUb1 Ht4/FRJTuEMVZtBR4W5PDIHSL6vNTdWL5QFQYJiR0umMexRk4xSSTVVy9bWYbOdCuOG/ 1A3w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531+rxhdon6hPpL4re8neyDrmHTGpNIWrMHrBv8rFpDCGvh8UK3r t+sm5FUaBcP3KVtJll42gi9XT2JlPvocHf7t/SA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzeyNptMgcFsxUuMoHUwGpxNp7E97MUDvjaP4IpUWaGFJ6+Di9PTNK5QP8g0T1P1HVqpBuGTlDUqhUEkz7A8Eg=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:8462:: with SMTP id 89mr7338165wrf.420.1594753588196; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 12:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 12:06:27 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <00d601d65a03$31f9bb20$95ed3160$@ndzh.com>
References: <CAMMESsyPX_A0RZ4KqOmn6Nv8vTJ5Kgi_ha28n9gu30Eg=Y4ziw@mail.gmail.com> <00a901d64e25$0b2ccc10$21866430$@ndzh.com> <BYAPR11MB320776EC7715E09C6221F884C0610@BYAPR11MB3207.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <00d601d65a03$31f9bb20$95ed3160$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 12:06:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMMESswkfdeqV38CWgiuyrT6UZPdPQrM4hA_1zkecA-1vCzRhg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis@ietf.org
Cc: idr-chairs@ietf.org, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000020fc4f05aa6b8120"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/dqbtnmQNr96bZXoyeE5oJ-xjPiw>
Subject: Re: [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: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 19:06:32 -0000

Hi!

I agree with Sue.

Note that the canonical form is the XML and xml2rfcv3 should allow for i18n
of the text…so I’m sure there is a way, I just don’t know what it is.

Alvaro.

On July 14, 2020 at 1:21:29 PM, Susan Hares (shares@ndzh.com) wrote:

Jakob:

If you cannot fix this issues, you may delete the example.

Sue Hares

-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 1:18 PM
To: Susan Hares; 'Alvaro Retana'; draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis@ietf.org
Cc: idr-chairs@ietf.org; 'idr@ietf. org'
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-06

Sue, Did you have any luck with the Cyrillic?

The draft says: (See PDF for non-ASCII character string), but when I click
the PDF link, it is exactly the same.

Sasha, are you able to create a PDF with the Cyrillic correctly rendered
and
upload it?

Alvaro, if we can make it work in the PDF, is it good enough?

If we can't fix this, could we delete the example?
I think the problem is clear enough even without the example.

Regards,
Jakob.

-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 7:53 AM
To: 'Alvaro Retana' <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>om>;
draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis@ietf.org
Cc: idr-chairs@ietf.org; 'idr@ietf. org' <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-06

Alvaro:

Thank you for your AD report.

A bit thank you for catching the major issue - that RFC8203 is being
declared obsolete.
(blush). I'm sorry I missed that one.

I'll work to try to fix the Cyrillic script.

Cheerily, Susan Hares

-----Original Message-----
From: Alvaro Retana [mailto:aretana.ietf@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 10:48 AM
To: draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis@ietf.org
Cc: Susan Hares; idr-chairs@ietf.org; idr@ietf. org
Subject: AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-06

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.

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr