Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis-01.txt [8/8 to 8/22]

[Balaji Rajagopalan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sue & Authors,

As an implementor of RFC 7752, I support adoption of this draft as a WG document.

I have a comment on section 4.7, though.

Section 4.7 mandates withdrawal of link-state objects advertised by unreachable nodes. I’d suggest making this an optional behaviour of the originator. Originator not presuming consumer’s disinterest in certain entries would permit a wider range of applications.

If there is agreement that section 4.7 can be optional:

I don’t believe that the contents of section 4.7 merit a dedicated section. The last paragraph of section 1, reproduced below, offers plenty of leeway for an originator to choose what gets advertised. If this text is thought to be inadequate, an additional line or two in section 1 would suffice, IMHO.

“
A BGP speaker may apply configurable policy to the information that
   it distributes.  Thus, it may distribute the real physical topology
   from the LSDB or the TED.  Alternatively, it may create an abstracted
   topology, where virtual, aggregated nodes are connected by virtual
   paths.  Aggregated nodes can be created, for example, out of multiple
   routers in a Point of Presence (POP).  Abstracted topology can also
   be a mix of physical and virtual nodes and physical and virtual
   links.  Furthermore, the BGP speaker can apply policy to determine
   when information is updated to the consumer so that there is a
   reduction of information flow from the network to the consumers.
   Mechanisms through which topologies can be aggregated or virtualized
   are outside the scope of this document
“

--
Balaji Rajagopalan


From: Idr <[e-mail]> on behalf of Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
Organisation: Old Dog Consulting
Reply to: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, 16 August 2019 at 6:07 PM
To: 'Susan Hares' <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'idr wg' <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis-01.txt [8/8 to 8/22]

Hi Sue,

I’m a co-author on this draft.

I agree that an update to 7752 is needed. Sort of regret that we didn’t get this right first time. On the other hand, turning the handle and getting an RFC out was the right thing to do 3.5 years ago, and revising our work is a good demonstration that it is implemented and relevant.

So yes, I support adoption and hope we can spend as long as it takes getting this polished.

Thanks,
Adrian

From: Idr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: 08 August 2019 20:31
To: 'idr wg' <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis-01.txt [8/8 to 8/22]

This begins a 2 week adoption call for draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis-01.txt [8/8 to 8/22/2019]

In your comments please indicate “support” or “no support”.

The chair and AD feel that a revision to RFC7752 is needed
to specify additional error handling.  Please consider
if this draft is a good place to start for this revision.

Cheerily, Susan Hares