Re: [Idr] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Sat, 06 October 2018 19:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@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 6DF03130E17; Sat, 6 Oct 2018 12:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-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
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 NA3QRSU6XQZJ; Sat, 6 Oct 2018 12:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3FEF130E0C; Sat, 6 Oct 2018 12:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3031; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1538852839; x=1540062439; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=w+LnGJQk6nioIp/GjjaI4Xkdd9XeT614H2jIcVyM1Ho=; b=KEJwkZNbtuYIcYEc/4ZWgrvi6fRf56EkkKuazG13e0Zt47C0N8OSB+lx +tEd54nwIFq2SD6mqBf7Vt/6qdRbtlFutOEpY7wvkvdeVIQvDz5ZS9B/L LpEBLoiAGk2w3DdQ0jgntiI4RsO9MzZREXXWOTbQubewhdSbIGFu6NhcH k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AGAADsBrlb/5tdJa1iGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBggWBZSgKi3+MKoINeJVxFIFmCwEBhGw?= =?us-ascii?q?ChC8hNA0NAQMBAQIBAQJtKIU5AQEBAQM6PwwEAgEIDgMEAQEfEDIdCAEBBAE?= =?us-ascii?q?NBQiFG6VVig2LOReBQT+BEoJdNYRLARIBhXcCnW4JApA/H4FOhGWJRJVLAhE?= =?us-ascii?q?UgSUdOGRxcBWDJ5BVb4p/gR+BHwEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,349,1534809600"; d="scan'208";a="462551714"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Oct 2018 19:07:18 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w96J7IXM030445 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 6 Oct 2018 19:07:18 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:07:17 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:07:17 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp
Thread-Index: AdRcF3khifKLKTceSAqH5NWF+nXt6AAXwnvQAExG+MA=
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 19:07:17 +0000
Message-ID: <8fba4405b5224a188e23741ee8b12dc1@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <001701d45c18$8d087820$a7196860$@ndzh.com> <800a8356a4f44e4db70f13a36c6f5552@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <800a8356a4f44e4db70f13a36c6f5552@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.24.222]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.11, xch-rcd-001.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/wf0AneSqUofTvPFE0D50mWYgJeg>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp
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: Sat, 06 Oct 2018 19:07:22 -0000

I have uploaded V12 of the document which addresses the Editorial issue (#1 below).

I have also uploaded an implementation report - currently specifying the one known implementation.

   Les


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2018 11:49 PM
> To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>om>; idr@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp
> 
> Sue -
> 
> Thanx for the review.
> Responses inline.
> 
> From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2018 12:29 PM
> To: idr@ietf.org
> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>om>; draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-
> bgp@ietf.org
> Subject: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp
> 
> Les, Stefano, Qin, Jeff, and Clarence:
> 
> This document is generally in excellent shape.   I note the following four
> things need to be fixed prior to submitting this to Alvaro Retana:
> 
> 
> 1)      Editorial:
> Page 3 states "Unidirectional Packet Loss", but section 3.4 says
> "Unidirectional Link Loss TLV"
> 
> Please fix this editorial error.  It is a requirement for sending to the IESG for
> publication
> 
> [Les:] I have changed these all to be "Link Loss' - consistent with RFC 7810.
> 
> 
> 2)      Security Section - Consider whether you want to add additional
> comments in your security section about the distribution of IGP TE
> information in BGP.   Even if the node inputted the data into BGP-LS has the
> appropriate permissions, BGP blindly sends this to the entire BGP
> infrastructure supporting BGP-LS guided only by policy set on nodes.  Is this
> what you want?
> 
> If so, I will forward this to the security directorate for their review.
> 
> 
> 
> [Les:] I am having some trouble understanding the motivation for your
> comment.
> 
> IGP TE information has been distributed via BGP-LS since RFC 7752. Why do
> you believe that the addition of the IGP TE information defined here requires
> additional security comments?
> 
> 
> 
> 3)      We do not have any implementations reported.
> 
> Please put the existence of the implementation on the BGP Wiki - under
> implementation reports.
> 
> [Les:] I have an implementation report for one Cisco implementation which I
> will post shortly. A second Cisco implementation is currently in progress.
> If other vendors have implementations that they wish to share I would
> appreciate it if they either contacted me or updated the wiki after I post the
> initial report.
> 
> 
> 4)      An IPR statement directly from Clarence Fils on this draft.  John
> approved the WG LC based on a related IPR statement, but I fear this will not
> be sufficient for the current IESG.  Please as Clarence to respond to this email
> with an IPR Statement.
> 
> [Les:] I have pinged Clarence on this - please expect a reply from him soon