Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-01

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Wed, 18 November 2020 06:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@cisco.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 82DAD3A0B78; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 22:41:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -11.887
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=VHMf4xYg; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=Q9RfGGo4
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 AX5UVYZuOfJC; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 22:41:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D9403A0B75; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 22:41:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=20580; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1605681686; x=1606891286; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=zv3qKK41guVgMp1RYsQ2wiohHf3PYTiqenU8Xd+e4TQ=; b=VHMf4xYgFVB6YJV/pBxnARm2iTXHSu1PZebc3q7kHkVDGyqntNzbsBGR mzH2xpTbsom0AtG7nne+JRDwf/vT4HySofitbYMWfuC/MB/ZeeRopue0e hKuVxxbcwQV7Sq8gxhqzgTewV4Z0LJOR/Td3f2k48Fi2v4/+XZtvEZ4KW Y=;
X-IPAS-Result: A0DvCAAVv7RffY9dJa1iHgEBCxIMgzIvUXtZLy6EPINJA41cgQWJEYl+hHCBQoERA1QDCAEBAQ0BASMKAgQBAYRKAheCCwIlOBMCAwEBAQMCAwEBAQEFAQEBAgEGBBQBAYY8DIVyAQEBAwESEQoTAQEpAwsBBAcEAgEGAhEEAQErAgICHxEdCAIEAQ0FCBqDBYF+VwMOIAEOkl6QawKBPIhodoEygwQBAQWFDw0LghADBoE4gnODdoZXG4FBP4ERQ4IaNT6CG0IBAQIBgScBEgEjK4JqM4Isk2qHHowPkEtVCoJtiRGMdYU1oXmTU4p/gm6SaQIEAgQFAg4BAQWBayFpcHAVO4JpUBcCDY4fg3GFFIVEdAI1AgMDAQkBAQMJfI1MAQE
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:MYuJcR9qF7T/1P9uRHGN82YQeigqvan1NQcJ650hzqhDabmn44+7ZhSN4vFhgFjGG47cre9H2KLasKHlDGoH55vJ8HUPa4dFWBJNj8IK1xchD8iIBQyeTrbqYiU2Ed4EWApj+He2Yk9RFMr5aBvZpTuv7m1aFhD2LwEgIOPzF8bbhNi20Obn/ZrVbk1IiTOxbKk0Ig+xqFDat9Idhs1pLaNixw==
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,486,1596499200"; d="scan'208,217";a="592947429"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 18 Nov 2020 06:41:25 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0AI6fP6N019999 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 18 Nov 2020 06:41:25 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 00:41:24 -0600
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 00:41:24 -0600
Received: from NAM11-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 00:41:24 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=LXCz1vyn4LSKiqTJ88rb5UO7K+xgyAsCWSvm9rut6TeUiaqKp2uAhGv1xNQdA0vcGaUUpBpVLFB4JhesZzHWFkk96ai0Xs8GHEBCPlmZrUCWkJ+ZgUSWZqQbLi9hJL7Pj1L5REhjd3+gYzxJgOYiQsuO2VY/vQV/f3dZl63z75ZWjw4sPnJeqwZYwP6VNXHOJ+ib4j7gMXD4ZKMvxZdJQAemKePLOK8QwxxIpjA2RQnRNM2J1ZjYitrPHT3T4WXdqFy+Kx4FfXWxjSUolTFj14Xnk0zqzz4fL3NsXk7qdKt/tQIHzgSnUbLgTs1hEA2XxGOANDNOgA4H4b7mAvx5iA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=zv3qKK41guVgMp1RYsQ2wiohHf3PYTiqenU8Xd+e4TQ=; b=l2O0Ei+IodMeMVI2rCv5wz55QZRtlPjDgo9CZ+EW2I4hhhal6c7O/kUTspQPY9hZt94tDxdQ+sHPRtF8KKVFpv/ze3Afddi0C8h7zGn2UTrBWk4Vsn/UEmiawyfFcw9pMmg7gO819unscPer3/AiPsNZEoteVUjMw3nPVCVOGV5KKPGcz5JQtUB71tTmClpn4R+ALEYee00Pz6HNzJRJVYHvgMvVJS5ue+1jA3azS++rxfrzlut+xf6uSO3mZxWKxB2iKMiQykekVEcNcpuZpu6E4vDjG6pPKTUKW6HhiIZPs+7KZx5SaBEdiPLPaDf7Gw7oug+u6HsnZt9dId6dBg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=zv3qKK41guVgMp1RYsQ2wiohHf3PYTiqenU8Xd+e4TQ=; b=Q9RfGGo434zjUxnOtlRCisRg3tfRltbGdvNAFfbXUCm0idZcH5U+ePwX/i8WDfdYEpxLPqO07Dd+mzD5OrDjqMcacdi1iVoBslqtzFWLjcgvhlmhcNSvfuRjDI/5Kr6KhGeHL7rp8kcgJ0P20Y96WtzDBcLlYlC28XtgwVZiML0=
Received: from BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:1c1::14) by BYAPR11MB2694.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a02:c7::20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3564.28; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 06:41:23 +0000
Received: from BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e063:fc51:b359:2f39]) by BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e063:fc51:b359:2f39%7]) with mapi id 15.20.3564.028; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 06:41:23 +0000
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, 'Alvaro Retana' <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry@ietf.org>
CC: "'idr@ietf. org'" <idr@ietf.org>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-01
Thread-Index: AQHWvDDnu7cxj92npkCf9tG+VE9IXanL+0AAgADwp0CAAHjlgIAAC2yA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 06:41:22 +0000
Message-ID: <BY5PR11MB43373225154DD06D5A98B418C1E10@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAMMESsxY8HwC7Vkdrc0Xy7ByCtuuaL3Zw2TuQjiGeVNwvcYCSg@mail.gmail.com> <02e101d6bcb9$d1fc8fd0$75f5af70$@olddog.co.uk> <BY5PR11MB433729C4A439F9615A3630B7C1E20@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <054e01d6bd6e$97b43430$c71c9c90$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <054e01d6bd6e$97b43430$c71c9c90$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: olddog.co.uk; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;olddog.co.uk; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c8:1003::69f]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4dbbff97-d669-4e53-ecc3-08d88b8cf74f
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR11MB2694:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR11MB2694983C1A4DC9C7AD360C64C1E10@BYAPR11MB2694.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: T5sNzqZRIV9+blHqiC0QWLftCnvvIc55ycwoUSNx4TeI8X235qQA5KIqdI5RXCvkff9f+c+tQiyqEMTwY4N3KE0g9fVwNFb4OtDSFT3L3yQ/GBymeVOrauzdSFF8YQfZvA7TVDyikkr3dHK3pz0YXy2ny7iuUYdiRaq1m8IcDTR0Sg5Wiv4IXp9hlACbc4d0gU1rRz+jS2vnxfKmOTMTKlmO9ZijI3RC4Z1LA/HxZ/HW63LRm0+mE0bbL7QywzBoRSRKFuodbdN9/07mg3iyScSsTb/yEUQhr6pBI9zeP7DDbU3cziAWd3ken4UjwZC1j6gRXojbx1w5wdRJrMYBKxlGxgagwAS/oEN2gNglnGLdJyJxbn+fxHV7/3Wp/fd69sElYyviFJsWAWj0RYF8Lg==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(136003)(376002)(346002)(366004)(39860400002)(396003)(316002)(9686003)(4326008)(83380400001)(66556008)(110136005)(186003)(166002)(54906003)(478600001)(33656002)(6506007)(53546011)(86362001)(7696005)(966005)(66946007)(66476007)(64756008)(55016002)(66446008)(76116006)(71200400001)(5660300002)(8676002)(52536014)(66574015)(8936002)(2906002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BY5PR11MB43373225154DD06D5A98B418C1E10BY5PR11MB4337namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 4dbbff97-d669-4e53-ecc3-08d88b8cf74f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 18 Nov 2020 06:41:23.2878 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 9rybgetTmU4vj2nlw426iHDqB5jL24jVNwE8VSGBh3JA4oJE5JCavtKjeXwtTFm6l5H8MGVRwZcH6tLHHnPUsQ==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR11MB2694
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.13, xch-rcd-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-7.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/myW2z5tRQBdWf-5uvEB_Dxd35nw>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-01
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: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 06:41:29 -0000

Adrian -



Inline.



> -----Original Message-----

> From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>

> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 9:50 PM

> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>; 'Alvaro Retana'

> <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>; draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry@ietf.org

> Cc: 'idr@ietf. org' <idr@ietf.org>; idr-chairs@ietf.org

> Subject: RE: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-01

>

> Hey Les,

>

> > Apologies for inserting myself in this discussion...but as

> > regards "Section2.1.  Guidance for Designated Experts"

>

> Not at all! As you may have seen, Alvaro and I had reached the point of

> needing additional eyes.

>

> > It seems you have largely retained the text from

> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7752#section-5.1

> > - but I am wondering why you don't replace this text with text similar to

> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7370.html#section-4 ? (which - as you

> may recall - you actually

> > wrote)

>

> Hah! Well, I had a hand in both 7370 and 7752 😊

>

[Les:] You are clearly a "man for all WGs". 😊



> Is that schizophrenia? Not completely. In 7752 and now in this document, I

> am not representing my opinion on what the IANA section should say or how

> DE guidance should be expressed; I am trying to represent the IDR view of

> how they want their registries run.

>

> > What I don’t like about the current text in Section 2.1 is:

> >

> > 1)It seems to be somewhat ambiguous as to whether a document is

> required.

> >

> > Saying

> >

> > "any  request for one of these code points has been made available for

> >   review and comment within the IETF"

> >

> > suggests that it might be allowed to request/assign a codepoint w/o a

> > document. Is this really what you intend?

>

> I believe you have correctly captured the intent of the text.

>

> My understanding of what the WG wanted was to allow a request for a

> codepoint to be made from "outside" the IETF by simply making a request.

> Since "the DE is expected to check the clarity of purpose and use of the

> requested code points" I would expect some brief documentation (probably

> an email).

>

> But if "the request comes from within the IETF, it should be documented in

> an Internet-Draft."

>



[Les:] Speaking for myself, I do not really want an assignment to be made w/o a document - nor do I see the need to do so. I think the text in RFC 7370 provides sufficient flexibility - but if the WG wants to allow some other form of document not specified there that could certainly be discussed and added.



> > 2)I do not know why the DE needs to:

> >

> > "post the request to  the IDR Working Gorup mailing list (or a successor

> mailing list

> >  designated by the IESG)"

>

> It is a mixture of:

> - politeness

> - allowing people working on the protocol to know what is going on

> - an opportunity for useful input to the DEs

>

> The bit about the successor mailing list is in case IDR is closed at some point.

>



[Les:] I agree that IDR need not be the only WG. We seem to be encouraging the inclusion of BGP-LS codepoint definitions in non-IDR documents as a means of reducing the number of documents needed - so I think this point is relevant even if IDR is still alive.



   Les





> > NIT: s/Gorup/Group

> Ack

>

> > I suppose this might relate to my point #1 in that if it were allowed to

> > request a codepoint w/o a document then the relevant WG might not

> > know about the request. So if you agree to point #1 then the need for

> > this text goes away.

>

> Yes, up to a point 😊

> Even if #1 ends up requiring documentation, that documentation is not

> necessarily:

> - an I-D

> - an I-D that anyone has shared with IDR

>

> > Something I DO like is the statement:

> >

> > "the DE must

> >   ensure that any other request for a code point does not conflict with

> >   work that is active or already published within the IETF."

>

> Glad to have *something* right.

>

> > RFC 7370 does not make this explicit statement, but clearly this is

> > desirable/required.

>

> Thanks,

> Adrian