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

Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Tue, 14 July 2020 19:32 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.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 4A6A43A0A93; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 12:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 S9PShqDZSPT8; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 12:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.97]) (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 CC5443A09D6; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 12:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=50.107.113.53;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: "'Alvaro Retana'" <aretana.ietf@gmail.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>
References: <CAMMESsyPX_A0RZ4KqOmn6Nv8vTJ5Kgi_ha28n9gu30Eg=Y4ziw@mail.gmail.com> <00a901d64e25$0b2ccc10$21866430$@ndzh.com> <BYAPR11MB320776EC7715E09C6221F884C0610@BYAPR11MB3207.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <00d601d65a03$31f9bb20$95ed3160$@ndzh.com> <CAMMESswkfdeqV38CWgiuyrT6UZPdPQrM4hA_1zkecA-1vCzRhg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESswkfdeqV38CWgiuyrT6UZPdPQrM4hA_1zkecA-1vCzRhg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:32:13 -0400
Message-ID: <018a01d65a15$7a1e7dc0$6e5b7940$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_018B_01D659F3.F30F27B0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQMu2y8qk/0y91Ft+eHZ8F7w7bmdsAHGT6B/AsCttyECBqfnjwG174gUphRWUyA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 200714-10, 07/14/2020), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/eNg13OZCraNuPJjgs74HvZBVC-w>
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 19:32:24 -0000

Alvaro and Jakob: 

 

I got caught with this earlier – the xml2rfc seems to have problems with the xml2rfcv3 syntax.   

 

It may be better to just drop the Cyrillic. 

 

Sue Hares 

 

From: Alvaro Retana [mailto:aretana.ietf@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 3:06 PM
To: Susan Hares; Jakob Heitz (jheitz); 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

 

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