IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-33: (with COMMENT)

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Wed, 31 July 2019 17:11 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.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 70F9E120480; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 10:11:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.948
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no 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 vnA7XQ2lwP6l; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 10:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-100-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.100]) (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 DEDA91203D6; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 10:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=174.25.161.218;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: 'John Scudder' <jgs@juniper.net>, "'Enke Chen (enkechen)'" <enkechen@cisco.com>
Cc: 'EXT - randy' <randy@psg.com>, 'Alvaro Retana' <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, idr@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages@ietf.org, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>, 'Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker ' <noreply@ietf.org>
References: <156449387998.2643.18137174091685834097.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <m27e7zxpv1.wl-randy@psg.com> <CAMMESsxccHKqaXeGKO1sD9jAiEM7McT9_+VUx4G_nqt_2TX3GA@mail.gmail.com> <m2zhkvw8in.wl-randy@psg.com> <m21ry7vvzk.wl-randy@psg.com> <EC487235-A83C-44F5-B51F-C92A05E56BF8@cisco.com> <016b01d547b9$27e07140$77a153c0$@ndzh.com> <440A6DAF-B715-4DC0-89B5-89BB3E299200@cisco.com> <7DC63C70-C3F0-428E-9F4C-9DE302D93748@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <7DC63C70-C3F0-428E-9F4C-9DE302D93748@juniper.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 13:10:49 -0400
Message-ID: <020301d547c2$e74a2040$b5de60c0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0204_01D547A1.603D3B30"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQHOmb0+S0HtjOtDEV+BauB+7nkX8wJXZMzlAsGO61MCti00KgFKU5JoAL6K2YQB833miQErJyF2AW222QKmfy9eYA==
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 190731-0, 07/31/2019), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/wFi2cSd95r2kpmN5_SUJx3t4Rtk>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-33: (with 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: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 17:11:18 -0000

+1 to John’s comments.

 

Sue 

 

From: John Scudder [mailto:jgs@juniper.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 1:03 PM
To: Enke Chen (enkechen)
Cc: Hares Susan; EXT - randy; Alvaro Retana; idr@ietf.org; idr-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages@ietf.org; The IESG; Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker
Subject: Re: [Idr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-33: (with COMMENT)

 

(As a WG member)





On Jul 31, 2019, at 12:51 PM, Enke Chen (enkechen) <enkechen@cisco.com> wrote:

 

As I understand,  the term "BGP speaker" is more commonly used, as in this draft also.

In this draft, there are numerous occurrences of the term "BGP speaker", and two "BGP listener".
It would be good to make them consistency if there is no special reason for a distinction.

 

I agree — we have a formal definition of “BGP speaker” in RFC 4271:

 

   BGP speaker
      A router that implements BGP.

 

I don’t think we have a definition of “BGP listener” anywhere, nor is it in common use as far as I know. If I encountered the term without context or definition to tell me the meaning, I’d guess it to mean “a management station that passively consumes one or more BGP feeds but never advertises any routes”. That doesn’t appear to be the intended meaning here, so, better to switch to the well-defined term.

 

$0.02,

 

—John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email