Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-10.txt (6/4 to 6/18) - WG LC completed, awaiting -12.txt

Susan,

Yes, I hope this revision finally addresses all wording issues that were
found during the WGLC.
As it was for all recent revisions, the diff doesn't change the mechanics
described in the document, so no updates are needed in the implementations.

вт, 7 июл. 2020 г. в 22:50, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>:

> Alex:
>
>
>
> I’ve been watching for -13.txt – so our emails cross paths.
>
>
>
> Is this the revision you wish me to review in my shepherd’s review?
>
>
>
> Sue
>
>
>
> *From:* Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Alexander Azimov
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 7, 2020 3:48 PM
> *To:* Susan Hares
> *Cc:* IDR; Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-10.txt (6/4
> to 6/18) - WG LC completed, awaiting -12.txt
>
>
>
> Susan,
>
>
>
> I've just pushed -13, it should resolve the ambiguity in roles definition.
>
>
>
> вт, 7 июл. 2020 г. в 01:30, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>:
>
> Brian and Alex:
>
>
>
> Would you please provide the text with the minor nits as -13.txt – so I
> know you are ready for shepherd’s review.
>
> I’d like to get this off to Alvaro’s list this week.
>
>
>
> Thank you, Susan Hares
>
>
>
> *From:* Brian Dickson [mailto:brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 6, 2020 6:17 PM
> *To:* Susan Hares
> *Cc:* Alexander Azimov; IDR; Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-10.txt (6/4
> to 6/18) - WG LC completed, awaiting -12.txt
>
>
>
> Hi, Sue,
>
>
>
> Per Alex's response, no changes. The table and policy are clear.
>
> The only possible change would be minor text changes to reference the
> table in the main text, if that makes sense to do (i.e. makes the document
> clearer to the reader.)
>
>
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 1:42 PM Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
>
> Alex and Brian:
>
>
>
> If you add any new limitations, this will need to go back through WG LC.
>
>
>
> However, WG LC is only 2 weeks (if no changes are made).   If you think it
> is required, then add it now – before I put in my shepherd’s repor.t
>
>
>
> Sue
>
>
>
> *From:* Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Alexander Azimov
> *Sent:* Monday, July 6, 2020 4:13 PM
> *To:* Brian Dickson
> *Cc:* IDR; Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed); Susan Hares
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-10.txt (6/4
> to 6/18) - WG LC completed, awaiting -12.txt
>
>
>
> Brian,
>
>
>
> I don't feel it's good to add any limitations aka stripping. Roles are
> negotiated, that is their main idea.
>
> And we already have an allocation policy for future roles:
>
>
>
>    The allocation policy for new entries up to and including
>    value 127 is "Expert Review" [RFC5226].  The allocation policy for
>    values 128 through 251 is "First Come First Served".  The values from
>    252 through 255 are for "Experimental Use".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> пн, 6 июл. 2020 г. в 22:49, Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 11:24 AM Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)
> <kotikalapudi.sriram=40nist.gov@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Gyan,
>
> You wrote:
> "In the context of keeping the door open for future internal roles as the
> reader would be confused when reading “any” meaning iBGP, however internal
> roles don’t exist today.  My recommendation would be to update the draft to
> say “any” when the internal roles are explicitly defined.  That could be
> done anytime when you have fully vetted the internal role concept and the
> draft is updated accordingly."
>
> Would the following substitution take care of your concern?
>
> Current text: BGP Role is a new configuration option that can
> be configured on any BGP session.
>
> New text: This document specifies a new configuration option
> BGP Role that is intended to be used with eBGP.
> However, in the future, the applicability of BGP Role
> can be extended to iBGP when suitable internal roles are defined.
>
>
>
> As an alternative, maybe change the text so that it references an IANA
> table, and have the new table introduced via the IANA Actions section, with
> particulars about how new table entries get added?
>
> Allow for private roles as well as new standard roles, with details on
> what to do with private roles (if private roles are defined/allowed), e.g.
> strip or substitute on announcement via eBGP.
>
> Or just have the well-defined roles table only, and require standards
> action to add table entries with reference to RFCs in the table.
>
>
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Sriram
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
>
> Alexander Azimov
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
>
> Alexander Azimov
>

-- 
Best regards,
Alexander Azimov