[Idr] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification-07

Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr> Mon, 12 September 2016 12:05 UTC

Return-Path: <emmanuel.baccelli@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09F1C12B259; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 05:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.597
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AZxx9gSw-MMo; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 05:05:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x232.google.com (mail-vk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::232]) (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 58E6912B211; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 05:05:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x232.google.com with SMTP id 16so111004882vko.2; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 05:05:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TMh6gJbfM53im7oquHAFVZUMGwdfqMAqywT1fv28nVo=; b=wBkYgBdROKbgoaBjUAcTOBLKsrwy9klyCHHkWnIFiJBZxGSUwTviIpJYX7ANIciVUv eGWAbWS2eFi5CI3t2xMqqyVNDW5SJD0mK7sneh2dOSW4034smArveDHoSCMIze3lR6tb dnI6lbDYqBF1k3WMLjKqCFoI9Bmsr4n1OIdZsAcQAe8raYeAhFK0Ov+juV2PcZehgQak nhXgpI3/BBnxR27bRj06Uz7yU23dOb4D1iMIEFQkqCJqzwQb8NzvSIAkuLv43PzxeA0u uhMTYsticJYnpC6lO2KsUw8MbNvODsk3AgMmgBTBvrWNtBf+c86hDhWkECmvZcZxoZ8W uvYg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject :to:cc; bh=TMh6gJbfM53im7oquHAFVZUMGwdfqMAqywT1fv28nVo=; b=f2xR6XXDyPcmKyRd4hEdU8jZM+b6JnFcoLwhYXK+ZKvqoSs/49ufB/ohGJdifNL6RE zuJmHnlSYt8jkzbDqs9LLUldSw2+ZDPpEC408+wk77yeJ4okOj92GgKHSIhzSiRci35W 8xyIqy4+pgVt2cNr5K7c9+qAoV90cXawC84eWOPLG1nSy8OhkbStN8na1EWTDthj9oFh s9YSgH5Xs1945xAsyAUwszkkinyKtAii/YpWBWvwDg7J92t6SlRu0OFUDD2C+jcnT4Vs r+Q/qmk6oUq0rLHm52gyMEXOa1Y2cc8DUEsF3rBTiaA6y6J9IlY7pFxwilbtgKjHtNQp k8Qw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwNxGsxE/hXJfvKIQTQC+ql1bHhIE2eLSHbROmdorgw8k3qbZp7Sddr1ZSR8YDD7klBnPNlVT2paCRhn/Q==
X-Received: by with SMTP id g83mr12162336vki.34.1473681946262; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 05:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: emmanuel.baccelli@gmail.com
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 05:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 14:05:25 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: cXrcQ42mhiVuwdJLwAd0W2YRsIw
Message-ID: <CANK0pbZbZ6ja_F=x91wz4wZ6nd+4as6oX26kE3V5ekopjO9Bpw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "<rtg-ads@ietf.org>" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11432270eb7c47053c4e50de"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/tHuSGztWcWfDB7E3s7EkYawYMvs>
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification.all@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification-07
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: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 12:05:53 -0000


I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes
on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to
the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please
see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last
Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification-07
Reviewer: Emmanuel Baccelli
Review Date: Sept. 12th 2016
Intended Status: Standards Track


This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should
be considered prior to publication.


This document is clearly written and easy to understand.
I am not a BGP specialist, and in particular I was not familiar with the
details of BGP Graceful restart before I have reviewed, so I had to go back
and read RFC4724.
It may mean that my review is not sufficiently in-depth, or that the nits I
point out and my editorial suggestions may be too pedantic.

Major Issues:
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:
No minor issues found.


Nits and minor suggestions below can be considered, aiming to improve

Working group indication:
 - indicate IDR working group at the top of the document (for now it says
"Network working group")

 - for clarity, append at the end of last sentence "and for force a full

Section 2
 - in restart flags, for completeness, recall that R flag is specified in
RFC4724 and what it indicates.
 - recall that reserved/unspecified fields must be zeroed (and ignored)?
 - spell out acronyms AFI and SAFI (in terminology section, as coming from
RFC4724?) before first use in the document
 - in Address family flags: remove "deprecated" specification text

 Section 4:
 - "When a BGP speaker resets its session due to a HOLDTIME expiry, it
should generate..."
  => s/should/SHOULD

 Section 4.1:
 - the last paragraph of section 4.2 of RFC4724 states that support for the
stale route retain timer is a MAY.
 It seems appropriate to specify upfront that this timer is now a MUST?

 - "This supersedes the "consecutive restarts" requirement of [RFC4724] S.
 => for convenience indicate which paragraph (3rd paragraph) of RFC4724 S.