Re: [Idr] Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-04

Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com> Thu, 17 October 2019 05:15 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@gmail.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 46E09120825; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KEyPDlYWk8YV; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x332.google.com (mail-wm1-x332.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::332]) (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 2A053120822; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x332.google.com with SMTP id f22so1022685wmc.2; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=ZY7hROlIeKCHNXoAPKE4kxBZKB2oTxoklBzFUMAoQBo=; b=p6ODkx/LWdFT69XQX2OlYO8AN9tgmkjtLD+CF7U4jdKr1v9S1GXc9LHwEzU+p94Wtb b0DnXX5mbhBv/iVtSak+7iG5DCFuCMv7RPaAXCL91WvkXIuCz2febjiQ3vZT/VJtcxEW rp4bOyeAeVnkBcRxqxXX2ini3wtdYtjcIL6QK6MDmgBr9fDfnWZKRK3ueREuVaibaxA0 MBnZXftAaw1sHBjPgXnfurm/5koEjsa53MXhyMCuKdpkavwGOPzxNGk86lPzMIqVoN5z yk/hsr9Ax1WqkWrOzmP+cfm+AzGg9lJSgp06FKkt3KLhPmdXusgKlYdFtS80fhMRj45n n6JA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=ZY7hROlIeKCHNXoAPKE4kxBZKB2oTxoklBzFUMAoQBo=; b=gm97sLazccrCVoWXeeotZuD4FjC+LiwawhYvkvnChG2yQ0copM2J8GnWG3/Z+KTjXU LT1SepgsOBejihPSu3dZw4SsuIP8a4QrcAgxzTsPiEfKPwV2IajCvmRSCnBDFes902Pe HfMErKHuD2Hs7fGkXjtKbUF6RydxMYg09RaJ8OXfV86lOv9E1c9DYViZwknpTSzXhE00 /JVVY5yrnMVonK8mPkOOhV15gBF4rUn8u/8oQR/PwsRS/6x5q9JxqGhgrUqOQSxCWwhd EKP4Yz1SGF3uFwsuKh15OyTXfrJNIIifeKvCX9LqDxczjZoT6c3P6hs3bgmr8nRyPIbp /MMw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUc6VBiY89KILOGJNCpkl3ctuuGa32FKrx1EmZNka4kRButfL03 DCvHlblYf896B+hs64AZK+VmNxZL
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwwkOtuZUz4aP1DRErjf+s4mpU9yrtXQxmFJ7bmWcJSK/esIdMw6no0LNm75ACFBd69x4RSKg==
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:ce88:: with SMTP id q8mr1022446wmj.160.1571289334251; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.2] (bzq-79-183-120-25.red.bezeqint.net. [79.183.120.25]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m18sm1092810wrg.97.2019.10.16.22.15.33 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:15:32 +0300
Message-Id: <82AC1D76-4D83-4B59-AFFE-40429B14852D@gmail.com>
References: <22F10988-DB4D-4C2A-A2DA-D677CE396122@juniper.net>
Cc: "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <22F10988-DB4D-4C2A-A2DA-D677CE396122@juniper.net>
To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17A860)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/x0IK9KGnK6xMuDvYLVAcqLZ8_NY>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-04
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, 17 Oct 2019 05:15:38 -0000

Hi John,

Thanks for addressing the issues raised in the OPS-DIR review. Looks good now. 

Regards,

Dan


Sent from my iPhone

> On 17 Oct 2019, at 1:32, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> Thanks for your review. We’ve just uploaded version -05 that takes into account your feedback. Some comments below.
> 
>> On Oct 1, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Dan Romascanu via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
>> Review result: Has Issues
>> 
>> This document defines an enhancement to the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message
>> "Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for operators to
>> transmit a short freeform message to describe why a BGP session was shutdown or
>> reset.  This document updates RFC 4486 and obsoletes RFC 8203 by defining an
>> Extended BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication to improve communication
>> using multibyte character sets.
>> 
>> It's clear and rather straightforward, so a full RFC 5706 review would not
>> apply. However, I have some questions and issues that I would suggest to be
>> clarified before advancement and approval.
>> 
>> 1. The document will obsolete, if approved, [RFC 8203]. The rationale for this
>> change is currently relegated in Appendix B. I suggest to be moved up forward
>> in the document, in the introduction section.
> 
> We didn’t want to hoist all of Appendix B up into the main text because in the long run, it seems better to keep the main body of the document down to just the facts an implementor needs to know. However, we did add a pointer to Appendix B in the introduction.
> 
>> 2. The 'Changes to RFC 8203' section should include an explicit list of the
>> changes such as length field and usage of multibyte character sets.
> 
> Done, in Appendix B. The only actual change is the permitted length, multibyte character sets were previously supported.
> 
>> 3. I do not know how widely deployed RFC 8203 may be, but we cannot exclude
>> that some versions do exist out there. I suggest that the Operational
>> Considerations sections include some information about what caution need to be
>> taken by the operators when migrating from supporting RFC 8203 to the new RFC.
> 
> New text added per your suggestion.
> 
>> 4. What does 'an invalid length value' mean in 'Error Handling' now? Previously
>> RFC 8203 had a requirement that 'The length value MUST range from 0 to 128
>> inclusive.' This does not exist any longer now.
> 
> Good point! Fixed.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> —John
>