Re: [Idr] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-25: (with COMMENT)

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Dear Francesca,

Thank you so much for your review of this document.

I added most of your suggestions to new version -26 which will be posted
soon.

On the other two points which perhaps require further clarification:

"ORR" is already explained in the title so I removed the hyphen there to
make it intuitive that this is the abbreviation for Optimal Route
Reflection.

As far as updating RFC4456 we have discussed this and the conclusion
reached is that this spec is not really an update. Reason being is that in
our understanding update is something that changes the previously defined
behaviour also in the same time obsoleting it. Here this spec is not
replacing traditional route reflection. It adds a new method on path
selection for situations where this is applicable and helpful. It is also
to be enabled explicitly by configuration.

The vanilla RFC4456 will continue to operate just fine for those networks
which deployed reflection in the data path or those AFs (AFI/SAFI) which by
itself reflect all paths.

Please kindly let us know if you are ok with the above explanations.

Kind regards,
Robert

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 2:47 PM Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-25: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for the work on this document. I have a couple of very minor
> comments
> below, and a non blocking question: it seems to me that this document could
> have contained the "updates" header wrt RFC 4456. Was this considered by
> the
> working group?
>
> Francesca
>
> 1. -----
>
> FP: Please expand AS, POP, SPF, IBGP on first use.
>
> 2. -----
>
>    The core of this solution is the ability for an operator to specify
>
> FP: I would suggest adding the name and abbreviation BGP ORR here,
> otherwise it
> comes as a surprise in section 4.
>
>
>
>