Re: [Idr] New BGP capability to advertise running daemon version

Robert Raszuk <> Fri, 02 August 2019 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE37C1205F5 for <>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 08:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0x5QwX23Yz5S for <>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 08:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C8A61201E5 for <>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 08:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r6so70107974qtt.0 for <>; Fri, 02 Aug 2019 08:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=q+e86QaWrayInaC6aHWkJhr0cWyarwE1o6nF0rMFlr4=; b=UtSfZ45Tcy8B8E4e6I2c8SC5hFyjEck95hK5+TyS3syRi3GdlnK9tCVU9vyk6n0kdw x27hivDYDZV28xEYGTiApXOP6f4kHqG1jG5h6N3k5cH4Uc67iflplWxEhBarA5VpOwsB o6eO8hFckLnxE5MgD0gGhjDf/sWecWcKO4VXmAFNVW9H0X9SETPs72nKWXL7aPLVWPlQ mDGSiBaZTgJoEpWaImOD4ZZYGft4nsRV/EfHXkkZw2Yq0/PboCNFy60pJg+4F5xRDEP/ OPso6QYn3g8ObLeu4AJ3pTAsWVu6kV/VCxTof5s3A8A0KNoQtx/T0aRJzmCgvqk5PTiP qQQw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=q+e86QaWrayInaC6aHWkJhr0cWyarwE1o6nF0rMFlr4=; b=aw8PqrQTzXa/+ZH3gSWG9Qb+xQ1Ke7n83Xf4Y5kWZqPIQh0wUhk7RDahopwp78Uu8A 4Fvan7z0KJQ9puXkEmUnxs20nUkVBcugI2v1nVZKcG2Ow8YyzXeB79dq5kbe/LgESVgi 9bo4Q3qKGN5Q1yC60ACCYedercEjBU1LnzulG3izf3L0vzC0o2rpQLsAhApP0rGfBTqK 8qowjzwQR4velUK8SDUgIJeICPA812cyxP0JzUwBEBSl2Qk2XnT9nsXpYeYQ1zqFNxik IhjqP0WL5LF2QIyCKv+/QhyobkgV2+KyuMHUZeCl5FWBtQ4GGobItFDf4mQrQKFFnCpb TpIg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVHiWTF5JlYy1TmVFH8ZawtxH9m9IIpBS3b4tKPbZ45wW5JsHo2 oCH2ykQmjjyT6ue2ISqtghGz9ntQgSE1OD7zg+uI1g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwgBtEAeMYf4j7b8VC84weJFoOgSa+1t47F7nDq5rKjO1LZkdQiW7AvzzusYCUxb68KcFasSDLPrU8MLa6ZCB0=
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4562:: with SMTP id o2mr98860739qvu.116.1564761002687; Fri, 02 Aug 2019 08:50:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 11:49:53 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Job Snijders <>
Cc: Nick Hilliard <>, Rob Shakir <>,, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b95151058f244fdc"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] New BGP capability to advertise running daemon version
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 15:50:06 -0000

Dear Job,

The current version of the document is already a very limited subset of
functionality mainly focusing on defining new BGP message after we took two
documents (BGP Advisory and BGP Diagnostics Messages) and merged them into
one document.

Quote from section 10:

   This memo is based on existing works [I-D.ietf-idr-advisory] and
   [I-D.raszuk-bgp-diagnostic-message] which describe a number of
   operational message types documented here.

If one would define just new BGP Operational Message alone then the
question will come up to provide the use cases. So here we are defining the
former with few optional use cases which was operationally found to be of
some use.

Of course this is no longer individual draft but belongs to WG so what WG
decides to do with it (if anything) is fine. Is core of your suggestion
that it is much easier to push N TLVs each in separate draft via IDR or
GROW rather then keep them in one consistent document - assuming that some
of them are just optional TLVs ?


On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 11:36 AM Job Snijders <> wrote:

> Dear robert,
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 00:29 Robert Raszuk <> wrote:
>> Extremely happy to see your support here.
>> Draft wise I think we still have sources :) But what really got this work
>> stuck is implementations.
>> Perhaps if we could make FRR and BIRD to implement it we could test it
>> and ask for WGLC.
>> Of course if there is seriou sinterest we should also ask for IANA
>> allocations too. I think both Rob & David would be happy to see this moving
>> forward too :)
> In order to move this forward, I think it would be good to split the draft
> out into the framework and then separately document the features. This
> allows the work to progress (in part), even when we encounter controversy.
> Cutting this up in smaller chunks will increase the likelihood of reaching
> the finish line.
> It also would make RFP / feature requesting + vendor management easier if
> we make sure all the documents in their entirety represent coherent
> building blocks.
> I’m happy to work on such a proposal with you.
> Kind regards,
> Job