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

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Tue, 07 March 2017 22:20 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 5073D129517; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 14:20:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.946
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fGzTGzcD0DQW; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 14:20:29 -0800 (PST)
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 C5E6A12968D; Tue, 7 Mar 2017 14:19:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=50.36.90.29;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: "'Alvaro Retana \(aretana\)'" <aretana@cisco.com>, "'Randy Bush'" <randy@psg.com>
References: <DAEE98CC-8483-499E-B71C-FE4C6FC15A4A@cisco.com> <m2tw78rwrh.wl-randy@psg.com> <000201d295ed$8824b320$986e1960$@ndzh.com> <0BBC61A9-758C-44FF-B36E-9C41399EDCCB@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0BBC61A9-758C-44FF-B36E-9C41399EDCCB@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 17:14:52 -0500
Message-ID: <01a601d29790$3edc1060$bc943120$@ndzh.com>
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
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/jS4vXXQSoobEBQB02sSvWSBF8AY>
Cc: idr-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-20
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 07 Mar 2017 22:20:30 -0000

Alvaro:

<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! 
Sue
-----Original Message-----
From: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [mailto:aretana@cisco.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 5:09 PM
To: Susan Hares; 'Randy Bush'
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages@ietf.org; idr-chairs@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-20

On 3/5/17, 3:17 PM, "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:

Sue:

Hi!

> 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.

Thanks!

Alvaro.