Re: [Idr] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com> Thu, 08 October 2020 05:22 UTC

Return-Path: <jheitz@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 3A9DC3A108A; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 22:22:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.598 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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=iLiXc6Z1; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=sATXG+Gm
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 c0aTguv2d_gn; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 22:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF4F23A1087; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 22:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7966; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1602134544; x=1603344144; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=h/5sflTTxFMn4Z1Mkr1EdXAdRU4b9MOBNbZWtf+3Omg=; b=iLiXc6Z151GZKRtJcI02Ok2dx3vstzPI6/R4Bqu8Hhg1Sm2kajRknnY+ 9JA4LwMDc2T2zV+P8vVy8r4oiYa/wJ43Tn2wyc8rcRElRorJY2+eRZLse U0fAt22wVKeQIx2KyVKrFD+HRxaSOO+503Mjyi12E1GCk2r+Kelmn1KhE 4=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AZiT1yhPdW9oMoslVKqQl6mtXPHoupqn0MwgJ65?= =?us-ascii?q?Eul7NJdOG58o//OFDEvKwz3lTOWp3W8e0CiuyF+6zjWGlV55GHvThCdZFXTB?= =?us-ascii?q?YKhI0QmBBoG8+KD0D3bZuIJyw3FchPThlpqne8N0UGE8H5f1DIvTuz621aFh?= =?us-ascii?q?D2LwEgIOPzF8bbhNi20Obn/ZrVbk1IiTOxbKk0Ig+xqFDat9Idhs1pLaNixw?= =?us-ascii?q?=3D=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BuAAAToX5f/4wNJK1gHQEBAQEJARI?= =?us-ascii?q?BBQUBQIE7CAELAYFRUQdwWS8shD2DRgOEWYkdgQKJD45qgS4UgREDVQsBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?NAQEjCgIEAQGESgIXgXACJTQJDgIDAQELAQEFAQEBAgEGBG2FXAyFcgEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?CARIREQwBATcBBAcEAgEIEQQBAQECAiYCAgIfERUICAIEDgUIGoMFgksDDiA?= =?us-ascii?q?BDp1pAoE5iGF2gTKDAQEBBYFHQYMtDQuCEAMGgQ4qAYJxg2uFOIEeG4FBP4E?= =?us-ascii?q?RQ4F9GzU+ghpCAgECAYEdCQESAQgbgxUzgi2PfSQygjMBPKNHUgqCaIkAjFw?= =?us-ascii?q?EhSmDE4oEhT+OV54KgmuSQAIEAgQFAg4BAQWBVDpnWBEHcBWBFYIPUBcCDYh?= =?us-ascii?q?3hSg3gzqFFIVCdAI1AgYBCQEBAwl8jG1fAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,349,1596499200"; d="scan'208";a="833711635"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 08 Oct 2020 05:22:20 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.15]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0985MK3t001536 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 8 Oct 2020 05:22:20 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 00:22:19 -0500
Received: from xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 00:22:19 -0500
Received: from NAM12-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-003.cisco.com (173.37.135.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 00:22:19 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Ol7+513/HG6I8+DgaA4UlIU3b1c0CjkYHZwcr80mhervQPYdO0kMDED7jHkiJbUxBJrh9yoOy6LXWUSDZwqin9bA1hfSSoljiUAsG3bZ38tcJ6cmXyzNVtEyG1pVclstnqSKsiWNoSXt+qT3siN2HvEO00gq0atgH/VokGlU4HuhXB2sKmhD4e15/yAlVo5U44U9iCpED2n523FWisBLOjm9mlLIiIl+lshvSScCgpEXoabEVHCbboa9VPUm+9a2513a6zOz8RGNOAn3BkzYrFXtqQg47Cv+YtcAI7WRlKdYrQS7QozCzbpp8g80ymHHeMVbo9MOnyeVz5XvgDeOpg==
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=h/5sflTTxFMn4Z1Mkr1EdXAdRU4b9MOBNbZWtf+3Omg=; b=LanR6G4kQrAnko8+FDZ5LBtEdw8RhFmOXnLDH5GqIDOcF5HtN8XellX1yhppoSF+Rk2bgPa5dmkvxhJ3F2n4Qr/71oiXNmirLgBFdbxHW0iNMaHKHC+1KdvKUxPwqFdmDkzEZ0T9q2ecSXwKAjn+PP5MAJJx4nNQ6kXMpFgn1X2GSpaTqisW3tAV0NN6/edkUJmT5waZRZrk07E5CKSKAsNO4UvVeo8Zm/rhENR/KOMlZrWMZ6vDHAEUl7YlN99cxIhG0slU7mqI9DHjlqi0N7hVDxdap3+YIArhfKYcbeOKzKB6afbpO8Zf4DMSyoGT4ZcwuHpEZKPP1OMncSmXCw==
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=h/5sflTTxFMn4Z1Mkr1EdXAdRU4b9MOBNbZWtf+3Omg=; b=sATXG+GmxyhZ1VZh1LGvjMCHOoA1MG1Z1QFouWE2JAOXI/kFUh2u1Xdivkyls01SpoSDN7oxQN4/DVLdKdzd6goHBoOvemZsXEU2k/ed2edp32n2doFzXphdK5JvmzD0TxMfNYTeoE5He84CHtFTboZ2rQMnKg7NeWA+ihKzQrQ=
Received: from BL0PR11MB3202.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:65::32) by BL0PR11MB3362.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:61::29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3433.32; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 05:22:17 +0000
Received: from BL0PR11MB3202.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::693c:9e39:1b44:fd69]) by BL0PR11MB3202.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::693c:9e39:1b44:fd69%3]) with mapi id 15.20.3433.046; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 05:22:17 +0000
From: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
CC: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis@ietf.org>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "aretana.ietf@gmail.com" <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHWnQdoQAdTOQupHUKqT/naq5NLQqmM39qwgAAROgCAADB+AA==
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 05:22:16 +0000
Message-ID: <BL0PR11MB3202C971AD064197DDE1BC48C00B0@BL0PR11MB3202.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <160211580198.31310.1253552691445772469@ietfa.amsl.com> <BYAPR11MB3207D6A626288B19FC942171C00B0@BYAPR11MB3207.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <D8FB407E-6B24-452E-AADD-B76A52245329@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <D8FB407E-6B24-452E-AADD-B76A52245329@cooperw.in>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: cooperw.in; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;cooperw.in; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2601:647:5701:46e0:4a3:1f38:ea7d:9e8c]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: add376ff-8fa6-42c5-5a5e-08d86b4a1f5e
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BL0PR11MB3362:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BL0PR11MB336217B638670211F6F93BC9C00B0@BL0PR11MB3362.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: KOsA1ipOKunHXzAt5A5IbutlAhAyph3iMeATZ3UCM2/1tjQkwCWxO6iE66+4nsr7W1dPjPa+NCMChE4E7BXR74wPkAAv8Lqwmoo99xr54NZqHc2WVadv6vDoGN20igC9625IqRrU/a3sJNyQ9p9YdySfVvy4w7KIOzBD6Bl7b+7gypBOl6HjLk6OW8BPrkLQF8X+uhOr2g7ddpYTwCHRlnujntnkHrptiq45Emy+I7D0VKkco0BaDgYme8V2/Go7t4Aqo1EJq1MiTglmA/16++BnQL6jccdOju/IcusvGEqBgnaWtx3CgfsYEcpCv4s4SoCmDB/yJlB+4G3tVQ4I3hjHSWlIW0LKUIkAAdpP6q8FOlRwn3fRyAEUXdbsc+0Jg0Y8mIcwJSo5erLWXWmWww==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BL0PR11MB3202.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(376002)(396003)(346002)(366004)(136003)(39860400002)(66946007)(86362001)(66574015)(5660300002)(76116006)(83380400001)(9686003)(55016002)(54906003)(6916009)(71200400001)(316002)(83080400001)(966005)(2906002)(8936002)(4326008)(52536014)(8676002)(478600001)(33656002)(186003)(7696005)(66446008)(64756008)(6506007)(53546011)(66476007)(66556008); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BL0PR11MB3202.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: add376ff-8fa6-42c5-5a5e-08d86b4a1f5e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 08 Oct 2020 05:22:16.9944 (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: MLx48Ti2yuBt10Cor8OWKSpOg3n7nua5XUGd7j4y1ASKWiWTc+F2Kbgyyjp4+2xXTzN5GaM3sil3Sb5HT0oP3g==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BL0PR11MB3362
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.15, xch-aln-005.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-7.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vmgPnpCh4OarM98iun7lR3bmbF4>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 05:22:29 -0000

Fair question.
Proposed text change:
OLD
   If a Shutdown Communication longer than 128 octets is sent to a BGP
   speaker that implements [RFC8203], then that speaker will treat it as
   an error, the consequence of which is a log message.  For this
   reason, operators would be wise to keep shutdown communications to
   less than 128 octets when feasible.

   There is no guarantee that the receiver supports either this
   specification or [RFC8203], so any shutdown communication might not
   be logged in an easily-readable form at all.  Therefore, operators
   would also be wise not to rely on shutdown communications as their
   sole form of communication with their peer for important events.
NEW
   If a Shutdown Communication longer than 128 octets is sent to a BGP
   speaker that implements [RFC8203], then that speaker will treat it as
   an error, the consequence of which should be a log message.

   If a Shutdown Communication of any length is sent to a BGP
   speaker that implements neither [RFC8203] nor this specification,
   then that speaker will treat it as
   an error, the consequence of which should be a log message.

   In any case, a receiver of a NOTIFICATION message is unable to
   acknowledge the receipt and correct understanding of any
   Shutdown Communication.

   Operators should not rely on Shutdown Communications as their
   sole form of communication with their peer for important events.

   If it is known that the peer BGP speaker supports this specification,
   then a Shutdown Communication that is not longer than 255 octets MAY be sent.
   Otherwise, a Shutdown Communication MAY be sent, but it SHOULD NOT be
   longer than 128 octets.
END


Regards,
Jakob.

-----Original Message-----
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> 
Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 6:52 PM
To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis@ietf.org; idr-chairs@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org; Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>om>; aretana.ietf@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)



> On Oct 7, 2020, at 8:59 PM, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> There is no way to know whether the neighbor supports RFC8203 either,
> so the problem is not unique to the bis.

Ok. How do operators decide whether to use RFC 8203 and, if this document is approved, how long of a message to use?

Alissa

> 
> This is a best-effort message for convenience.
> The session is going down whether the message makes it or not.
> If the peer operator is confused, he will pick up the phone and
> call the NOC or whatever else they do today.
> The message prevents that phone call.
> When maintenance is scheduled, it should be agreed upon beforehand,
> so both ends should be expecting the cease notification anyway.
> This message serves only as a reminder in case people don't read their email and such.
> 
> Regards,
> Jakob.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 5:10 PM
> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis@ietf.org; idr-chairs@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org; Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>om>; aretana.ietf@gmail.com; shares@ndzh.com
> Subject: Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-07: Discuss
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> "If a Shutdown Communication longer than 128 octets is sent to a BGP
>   speaker that implements [RFC8203], then that speaker will treat it as
>   an error, the consequence of which is a log message.  For this
>   reason, operators would be wise to keep shutdown communications to
>   less than 128 octets when feasible."
> 
> I have a similar question to what Éric asked. Doesn't the above mostly undercut
> the value of doing this bis at all? If operators can't expect longer messages
> to be understood, will they implement some kind of policy logic or heuristics
> to decide when to try to send them and when not? Otherwise, under what
> circumstances will they send them?
> 
> Was it considered to instead add a new subcode to the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION
> subcode registry to capture this case (admin reset or shutdown with long
> shutdown message)? That way at least those who want to use it can differentiate
> between recipients that don't support RFC 8203, those that do, and those that
> support longer communications. I'm not at all steeped in BGP so I'm happy to
> drop this if it's unworkable, but I wanted to ask.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> For the IESG: it would be good to discuss a bit if there is some process we can
> use to avoid this kind of oversight (that occurred with RFC 8203) in the
> future. i18ndir didn't exist when it was published, but even if it had I'm not
> sure we would have caught this.
> 
> 
>