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

[Dan Romascanu <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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
>