Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-15 comments and suggestions

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Mon, 19 March 2018 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@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 A69A512D875; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 Rka48WULyclz; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x230.google.com (mail-wr0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::230]) (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 E99E91241F3; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x230.google.com with SMTP id o1so19618965wro.10; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=00cwwvvgtGTjtbur7Rj7Sh8Xq9FyNMMZkP6DHdBylMM=; b=NYKq6XK45u4HaTks3kcUffNGmM4sHgjlMub/n+W6jAPRxDmZ/1Lgt6P3r9qSnYQ4Lo 5HsVV5cZYccCIUuEBHrHJCFXJ1E8SIKNuAZY4PUXBZgfasIruyZ89SeLfHz1EjBvt1Cg OkmVnIEtFuk86EHBwwJMYf4V2Koqj5VKAotSbK9WHlcvFPa0+DnKPt1v93HYzmTzwwo0 gJJbbavH0/LDSLRJ5ikuAGHZ9FMSXEdnYgcqzqbfY73YPdYXMfd5i55a3veJZ4sRCmOr Ten6YAwPfoWf0crpk2mcDwEmj7wklhp8KM8gBQFblS4vkVkI0AOB10gZWUZJNOvKkL+Q xhig==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=00cwwvvgtGTjtbur7Rj7Sh8Xq9FyNMMZkP6DHdBylMM=; b=O5PTCmcwt140APcCM3fh4jFNjER6boePvSt0uslvZQPcDgOjrMkKKbQM0IEtX4MB8i G636p6UTsm7ajAOZ7drAdaUP/zehjYyra6uGRS7InysQ+rBVLIey1P5YLyHS5G2/cCGG ZnlPf2Z3vA6nb5UUTNU8YO5OJyDAQsdKx5kgSBtSs0hK4WAnz76P5iIxSbLDVMmjEuIN 8okT79UyhbM8z3HDhItBVHBUA6XhH2ZZ4D+1VbkrREuehz5gKeXK1h0Ehrnoi3evXQv7 DRfrDP6baHzRSLdPtX9t7BVNMgrJAV58j7RSCuIg660pL2qHUsuarkEkH5DtsN/cYeKU rgpA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7EhXuv1zB4M6nlvF9EHyWLe3dj7XGfLrIqjv8osg14Ui/AIWPDl L29KyoAF/B6rC4KToY4W2gezMkQKokkiYb+dX0UoSA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvE2N8al19tHfMhK/+hhS4tnY2AbnoskuK07MOL9I9kUKkOfgvs2h1Jk1qRoZA73F9n/eAqHeyaZirMe2P1H7Q=
X-Received: by 10.223.156.206 with SMTP id h14mr9537329wre.281.1521484245157; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.28.222.197 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <360A7BD6-59BB-431F-BD18-46E2F2F14FA2@juniper.net>
References: <9A570D1D-5409-4512-AA45-98866094C1A8@juniper.net> <360A7BD6-59BB-431F-BD18-46E2F2F14FA2@juniper.net>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 19:30:44 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: lcQUhLMVLwIyneHmedVlp8sxTQQ
Message-ID: <CA+b+ER=u4XTJBmgsYpzFEY41HbrA95EyMtFqa3NyBgUmWsRoPw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection@ietf.org, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403043a1a10f6ccc90567c8275e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ghEFj1AAvwAPUqat3DuPx3NaQbM>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-15 comments and suggestions
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:30:50 -0000

Thx John for reposting ...

Erik, Kevin & myself had few discussions on this last Nov, but we clearly
did not finish updating all comments to new version -16. Let's resume this
effort offline.

Many thx,
R.

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 1:57 PM, John G. Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>; wrote:

> Bump.
>
> --John
>
> > On Oct 28, 2017, at 12:10 PM, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>; wrote:
> >
> > Hi Authors,
> >
> > As part of working on the shepherd's report I came up with a few fairly
> minor comments and suggestions. If you choose not to adopt #1 (not
> necessarily the exact text) I'd be interested in further discussion.
> >
> > Some of my comments suggest replacing the term "optimal" with something
> more specific. I suggest this even though I do note your paragraph that
> begins "In this approach, optimal refers to..." (which might go well in the
> Introduction or even definitions, by the way?).
> >
> > 1. The document uses the term "best path" in many places. The term is
> used in the sense BGP practitioners tend to use it, and not the common
> English sense. This might be a problem for reviewers who aren't BGP subject
> experts. I suggest adding a definition to section 1 or elsewhere, along the
> lines of,
> >
> > best path - the route chosen by the decision process detailed in [RFC
> 4271] section 9.1.2 and its subsections.
> > best path computation, best path algorithm, best path selection - the
> decision process detailed in [RFC 4271] section 9.1.2 and its subsections.
> >
> > 2. "best exit point" --> "closest exit point"
> >
> > 3. "add/diverse path deployments" should have references to RFC 7911 and
> RFC 6774.
> >
> > 4. The reference to draft-ietf-idr-add-paths needs to be updated to
> point to RFC 7911.
> >
> > 5. "While the route
> >   reflector chooses one set of n paths" --> "When the..."
> >
> > 6. "enough so to make it typically undesirable" -> "enough so to
> typically make it undesirable"
> >
> > 7. "optimal distance to the next hops" --> "shortest distance to the
> next hops" ?
> >
> > 8. "This also provides for freedom" --> "This provides for freedom"
> >
> > 9. "allows transient or permanent migration of
> >   this network control plane function to an optimal location" -->
> > "allows transient or permanent migration of
> >   this network control plane function to an arbitrary location"
> >
> > 10. "The choice of specific granularity is left to the implementation
> >   decision" -->
> > ... left as an implementation decision
> > or
> > ... left to the implementor to decide
> >
> > 11. "implementation may automate it
> >   based on specified heuristics" -->
> > "implementation may automate it
> >   based on heuristics"
> > or if "specified" means something, it needs to be elaborated
> >
> > 12. "In situations where BGP next hop" --> "In situations where the BGP
> next hop"
> >
> > 13. In section 4.3, aren't paras 1 and 3 redundant, especially starting
> from "will be applied first" in both paragraphs?
> >
> > 14. "one or more backup virtual
> >   location SHOULD" -->
> > "one or more backup virtual
> >   locations SHOULD"
> >
> > 15. "overhead is comparable to existing BGP export policies therefore"
> --> "overhead is comparable to existing BGP export policies and therefore"
> >
> > 16. "In the
> >   networks where there are" -->
> > "In
> >   networks where there are"
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --John
> > _______________________________________________
> > Idr mailing list
> > Idr@ietf.org
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.
> ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_idr&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=hLt5iDJpw7ukqICc0hoT7A&m=EESFOQ2FZ1ow8qBl5Ee1jJ5RTHwGl0
> 4ZjBbru1xT15I&s=zqQBURSlJ210Lxi8TC-O7mASpDluBPsMb0XI4F7PDjY&e=
>
>