Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review : draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-33.txt
Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 19 July 2019 16:26 UTC
Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65AF4120738; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 09:26:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 rF6fPoOakymI; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 09:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x529.google.com (mail-ed1-x529.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::529]) (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 59ED4120845; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 09:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x529.google.com with SMTP id k8so34964978edr.11; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 09:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=r4N0hhdnwHykrrT2Z/fCGYQTD75PQgWh0WnAMUfOPWo=; b=Bazn1PvMAHJz9K7p1n/6N/3GdRdpUNagug/4zPR2+5aXsSuxqYD7mLYBji8M5JmlnZ cj4UJkoAGwdcIenl61s9APYACL3XWZ2Inot3yYeyyYVz3gd+HEfFgHJmg9byb/0bRw+B OVpOjRJ8hXUcYNiBR/zdSNbt1b1U44TPStICnEdvu5UJwf+4Urbxp3kb/qI9fX/m236x sZePlDAlthcNBCvl7XS2opmgUTUfrWOrscdMUF7w1NKL+/zftMfoE1fM+zxAJxKS8jTi crIVB5hnX7nlfWg2QB9Xd9M3xJ4CKuArbK5bduL8DeVrVV0Uk1fgxtmK4PdWUS+SnMhy WO2Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=r4N0hhdnwHykrrT2Z/fCGYQTD75PQgWh0WnAMUfOPWo=; b=KlA4qHRjncqk1SNhmuHpp4x99xunoYfzq/uz8edJYK8Mv4d+ufbv3FWAU9FcdkHgas sUslcBsFIU7KGKBMGx+HV7TJt2PPgUpUBF+Ni9GNlHEuZDCsWfPe56iY1h3uZkRd0KNp zUSI6Of4T8DPFehMSHCGFQ+t6hd6hgxC2lbtybxsIVe7Q0DhMGnFdjsbwUu54S/U3LOA kqjUcar2tNytWWwG0RNbhgZlkm6NPCY7E/HzoSUl81f0F5QuXx0ppP+CySxs+r/tKXI3 F5TxRxwnvwuNeD3uxdLOyuBhc8xiVGuEZF6YEVlK+jUMKvYZZHVZAZlW3Cq8Jl2SJwGE 4pLQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVEl+72BHIUqLho5AztQzl/gqp5bHhMm5BKezhC1DlgMfJ9bj9u GydqmCD3Px/cpHoZexMTiGL7H45ytgCY89YFGVgNt0Db2g8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwa1oBU0tfOxkreI68aytb+fvba2CDCuZOaJv1N9zAwk2nosMeX3zvX/sJGv6UI3x0fc5ahYUUDdfuutHsnMzE=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:a5ec:: with SMTP id b41mr46003219edc.52.1563553557988; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 09:25:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 09:25:57 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <E14C9916-FE09-4CA3-85C7-441DDE658524@ciena.com>
References: <E14C9916-FE09-4CA3-85C7-441DDE658524@ciena.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 09:25:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMMESswiKvRbsWGTB-2KOO68aJ0pyYbeYDPJzL=nqu5LEUjYrA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com>, "<rtg-ads@ietf. org>" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
Cc: "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages.all@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000694c62058e0b2ef7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/-UREWRNLB_mCpGVHo-qGTmvjXNY>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review : draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-33.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 16:26:03 -0000
Himanshu: Thanks for the review! Alvaro. On July 18, 2019 at 10:31:08 PM, Shah, Himanshu (hshah@ciena.com) wrote: Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-33.txt Reviewer: Himanshu Shah Review Date: 18 July 2019 IETF LC End Date: Unknown Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: I have some suggestions to improve the document by adding more context to the goal of this draft. Comments: The document is concise, clear and easy to read. Since this is my first review as Routing directorate, the suggestions I have, could be out-of-scope. Will leave at the discretion of AD and authors, if suggestions are worth pursuing or not. While Introduction section briefly mentions newer capabilities as the reason for extended message size for the BGP, it may help the reader to expand on the advantages of extended message as compared to current limitation of 4K BGP messages. For me, subsequent reading of the document as it underlines the migration, error cases and security risks, the advantages of extended message size seems to dissipate. I also suggest that authors address issue of extended delay at the receiver in processing of large size BGP messages while TCP’s reliable transport is building a complete message under challenging network conditions and compare that against smaller messages in distressed network. In my view, making a strong case on why extended message size, would greatly add value. Major Issues: No major issues found. Minor Issues: No minor issues found. Please note the suggestion in the comment section above. Nits: None. *Thanks,* *Himanshu*
- [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review : draft-ietf-idr-bgp-exte… Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review : draft-ietf-idr-bgp-… Alvaro Retana