Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-20

"Susan Hares" <> Tue, 07 March 2017 22:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5073D129517; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 14:20:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.946
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fGzTGzcD0DQW; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 14:20:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5E6A12968D; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 14:19:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: Susan Hares <>
To: "'Alvaro Retana (aretana)'" <>, 'Randy Bush' <>
References: <> <> <000201d295ed$8824b320$986e1960$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 17:14:52 -0500
Message-ID: <01a601d29790$3edc1060$bc943120$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQInnAj+Yxa8tap/yfCJFXAjQYwk1wF1zsYwAlX2LeQCP/hY1aCviGpA
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-20
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 22:20:30 -0000


<shepherd hat on> 
I'm saying your suggested revisions did not correctly align with RFC4271 specification, specifically in the area of the FSM.  I objected to version-21 because it contained errors by misaligning the text with the IDR FSM.  (see mail list for specific issues0.  I proposed a cleaner replacement text.  Earlier versions did not hit this misalignment.  As a shepherd, I felt version-21 could not go forward.  
<shepherd hat off> 
<individual contributor, co-author on RFC4271 hat on> 
I am saying the better way is to just utilize the BGP message header length error function (0-4096 normal, 4097-65535 extended) and let the FSM handle it.  Then all BGP messages could be large. See the email thread. 
<individual contributor hat off> 
<WG chair hat on> 
This is why we have the thread on the mail list about accepting all messages
</WG chair hat off> 

Happy changing hat day to you! 
-----Original Message-----
From: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 5:09 PM
To: Susan Hares; 'Randy Bush'
Subject: Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-20

On 3/5/17, 3:17 PM, "Susan Hares" <> wrote:



> A few point have raised my disagreement regarding the AD reviews.   At this
> point, the text is at odds with RFC4271.   If you feel RFC4271, does not
> speak about these issues - you may have missed why the BGP FSM is there.
> Please change your text. 

I’m not sure why you disagree with my comments…but if I interpret your points correctly, I think you’re saying that this document should also update the FSM where needed, is that right?  If so, then I agree with that.