Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-12 WG LC (5/24 to 6/7)

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Wed, 25 May 2016 09:45 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 4FA2712D59A for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 02:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham 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 ehvq4r8AVbqx for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 02:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5378C12D592 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 02:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1b5VNj-0007Fy-AD; Wed, 25 May 2016 09:45:39 +0000
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 11:45:38 +0200
Message-ID: <m2twhmqxml.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Gunter Van De Velde <guntervandeveldecc@icloud.com>
In-Reply-To: <73AB7C41-FA1D-42AB-9D5E-CE7BB37413BB@icloud.com>
References: <037f01d1b5fc$bfb596f0$3f20c4d0$@ndzh.com> <3F1E4C52-A3EF-48E0-A1F9-E5A3A71658B5@alcatel-lucent.com> <m2vb22qyvd.wl%randy@psg.com> <73AB7C41-FA1D-42AB-9D5E-CE7BB37413BB@icloud.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/sg3B9LAi8cj97LiDB-inChVa1Rs>
Cc: idr wg list <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-12 WG LC (5/24 to 6/7)
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: Wed, 25 May 2016 09:45:42 -0000

>>> Section 5 – par1: When using the more liberal policy, I believe it
>>> would make sense to indicate a message that an extended message was
>>> received while it was not expected at all
>> 
>> please be specific.  by "indicate a message" are you suggesting a new
>> "you sent a surprise" response message?
> 
> Yes, indeed… something in a syslog or so that the peer sent some
> unexpected packet to alert the ops team to look into it.

so you do not mean a bgp message, but rather that errors should be
logged and maybe an snmp trap raised.  so, if we start to add a short
sentence or paragraph on this to the end of section 5, how far do you
want to go?  is there something to which we could point?

randy