Re: [Idr] draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm-05.txt - WG Adoption and IPR call (9/27 to 10/11/2022)

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Thu, 29 September 2022 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 A1C25C14CE26 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 08:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.904
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W1UWqeEwvp0Z for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 08:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93EBFC14CF15 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 08:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.241] (c-8f02e353.020-236-73746f24.bbcust.telenor.se [83.227.2.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7D5C43689B6; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 17:50:27 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <d4551830-263c-1874-aa13-f89253d22b9f@pi.nu>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 17:50:26 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.0
Content-Language: en-CA
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
Cc: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>
References: <BYAPR08MB4872EEE329BDDDCC0F387B17B3559@BYAPR08MB4872.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <AM7PR07MB62485C05E78F6439215A3FF7A0579@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMGeQ_7jV-0ZDbLLb1NfLjKu5XW8VMZsRK_ARkubFWzm9Q@mail.gmail.com> <AM7PR07MB6248B30EF45B24D7612273A4A0579@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMHQGbC2ub-H6SfF2geKsnm71nXOhxFhuKEib6_Pu8BFLA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMHQGbC2ub-H6SfF2geKsnm71nXOhxFhuKEib6_Pu8BFLA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rKta6UtPl70DKJW8LP93QOlXwlw>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm-05.txt - WG Adoption and IPR call (9/27 to 10/11/2022)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 15:50:36 -0000

Robert, Tom,

Inline please.

On 2022-09-29 17:45, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>  >  I did search the BGP protocol RFC and was struck by its absence 
> except for the one RFC I mentioned.
> 
> Well there is also rfc6198, rfc1745, rfc4798, rfc4216, rfc5152 etc ...
> 
> Thank you,
> R.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 5:33 PM tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com 
> <mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com>> wrote:
> 
>     From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net <mailto:robert@raszuk.net>>
>     Sent: 29 September 2022 16:29
> 
>     Hi Tom,
> 
>      > Is the term ASBR well-understood in the context of BGP

ASBR is in the RFC-Editor's list of abbreviation and marked as 
"well-known", which means that it does not have to expanded in a new RFC,

That said, if the authors think there is a value in expanding (or 
explaining) they are free to do so.

/Loa
> 
>     It is a very well known term and widely used across many documents
>     in the context of BGP protocol. Sometimes you will see folks
>     abbreviating it to "BR", but the BGP speaker which talks EBGP is
>     almost always called Autonomous System Border Router (I used word
>     "almost" as there is an exception - confederations).
> 
>     Robert
>     Thanks for that.  If the author used EBGP, I would have known what
>     he meant!  I did search the BGP protocol RFC and was struck by its
>     absence except for the one RFC I mentioned.  In OSPF it is well
>     defined and I would not have commented on it.
> 
>     Tom Petch
> 
>     Thx,
>     Robert.
> 
> 
> 
>     On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 10:23 AM tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com
>     <mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com><mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com
>     <mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com>>> wrote:
>     From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org
>     <mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org><mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org
>     <mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>>> on behalf of Susan Hares
>     <shares@ndzh.com <mailto:shares@ndzh.com><mailto:shares@ndzh.com
>     <mailto:shares@ndzh.com>>>
>     Sent: 27 September 2022 18:30
> 
>     This begins a 2 week WG adoption and IPR call for
>     draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm-05.txt.
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-idr-node-target-ext-comm/>
> 
>     <tp>
>     The protocol depends in part on whether or not a router is an ASBR. 
>     I am used to seeing that term used in the context of OSPF and not of
>     BGP.  I did find a usage in RFC7705 but note that that RFC felt it
>     necessary to explain what an ASBR was.  Is the term ASBR
>     well-understood in the context of BGP (as opposed to OSPF)?
> 
>     I find the IANA Considerations imprecise.  It asks for a new
>     sub-type in a registry whose name is not present in IANA; there is
>     one that is close (but no cigar).
> 
>     Likewise, it talks of 'registry of the "BGP Extended Communities" 
>     registry'.  This is wrong on two counts.  A registry is part of a
>     registry group, not part of a registry (prior to recent discussions
>     on the Last Call list I would have just said 'group').  Second,
>     there are no BGP registry groups and that identifier does not appear
>     anywhere on the IANA website AFAICT.
> 
>     Tom Petch
> 
>     The authors should respond to this email with an IPR statement.
> 
>     The WG should consider in their discussion:
>     1) Will this new  transitive extended community help
>     in operational networks?
> 
>     2) What conflicts does this new Extended Community have
>     with other functions in general BGP route distribution or
>     VPNs (EVPN, IPVPN)?
> 
>     3) do you have any concern about the text in the draft?
> 
>     Cheerily, Sue
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Idr mailing list
>     Idr@ietf.org <mailto:Idr@ietf.org><mailto:Idr@ietf.org
>     <mailto:Idr@ietf.org>>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

-- 
Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa.pi.nu@gmail.com
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64