Re: Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-12

Ahmed Bashandy <abashandy.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 06 February 2021 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <abashandy.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2842E3A0E1A; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 11:04:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 GGhr4h-9LugP; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 11:04:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1029.google.com (mail-pj1-x1029.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1029]) (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 992D83A0E19; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 11:04:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1029.google.com with SMTP id gx20so5680124pjb.1; Sat, 06 Feb 2021 11:04:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=2KywV5h8r3XUm1cKWL/ISSdNrLOM1GcgZU+8u0ri6Uo=; b=fEP68ndq1vNI5Z0rWKKpnjTTy0QXhVawjjoG1mjcDEDanNbeTz1SIJpzubpZeiU0ff kipipFTS2QRtWxzE8PjTly+J/ST2SEK+j49d1oMVrJEIuLJV5+07mQIno55ZEidMgqL1 3yeWiR31vyRDjK6mMVruMCs2FjMylrVTz8yi5gCKGnJxM8yI9sedGW07XCd1VjEaRrdo gpqyMEF0veN8rSGGejATOOBzvU36tILv8i9uruZ/eFFlxbanpPFMfJmJAGZ9vQoZrMEc pIqXew+mhHvEBCnW6u4em0/p8xhnZnSnZbq3XHHWoAm8HnbSUnwCDSDAeD+8phi0m6KH KVPA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=2KywV5h8r3XUm1cKWL/ISSdNrLOM1GcgZU+8u0ri6Uo=; b=C+ax+Rlo7SMjMApbMBSVOzqb8RtgiBnf4444n+nsviMy7/OPCmuCAmv9e2xOXrCEds dEyS2pMMIj4Kz+G0bseLVNF4f0ko4baFi838BtemwP2pxx0QU37veAVFlLAMZUaADVSG r4snabLUCkE51M5wEuouLvU1HsDEaavizhYcV2Ouu2Z4aqkHRRxV1kJ6aF7lzMkzaToz DwXHzNikqgG/Y/mNtqvRDPFkfxm+GlTN5bfpvMeO+NzoFNnLosX+7zdg3tmfZfCUUAK1 ufoy9jdX8c716BeUSrwVI99EAD7hq9U02Wn4m3nwHTmO+KiMbdIE+o00ukdoeWjERJVv LScQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533M/McHCWQ83kDL3bK/Rn5p0guta/OBdQU5KIVQkKZI6VpF+fPS t4qKkSwe472BXEkaEbNfZldRcm7/3rQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzALrLhZ/kT1moOb4MwGjAjR1pqrth13FXqqd2J1Ea3d4fNzySnNFmyJ7uyW/JRzlaJhAZYjg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:19cb:: with SMTP id nm11mr9360462pjb.168.1612638273829; Sat, 06 Feb 2021 11:04:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.50.246] (c-73-189-164-225.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.189.164.225]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q2sm13338325pfj.32.2021.02.06.11.04.32 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 06 Feb 2021 11:04:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-12
To: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>, iot-directorate@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org
References: <161091705878.30489.6097804261671946160@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Ahmed Bashandy <abashandy.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <096c6609-c596-462e-2d8f-371721106c2c@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2021 11:04:32 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <161091705878.30489.6097804261671946160@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/AB09Dioc6WAITPQhT5q05J_dqiM>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2021 19:04:36 -0000

Thanks for the comments

I will fix the nits shortly


ahmed


On 1/17/21 12:57 PM, Ines Robles via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> This document proposes a hierarchical and shared forwarding chain  organization
> that allows traffic to be restored to pre-calculated  alternative equal cost
> primary path or backup path in a time period that does not depend on the number
> of BGP prefixes.
>
> Comment/Question to the authors:
> 1- In the document states: "The proposed technique achieves prefix independent
> convergence while ensuring incremental deployment, complete automation, and
> zero management and provisioning effort." What is the scope involved in zero
> management? It would be nice if the text explains how the technique achieves
> the zero management and the provisioning efforts. 2- "it benefits from all its
> benefits" --> it would be nice to mention some of the benefits in brakets. 3-
> Is this technique not affected by any type of bpg prefix hijacking attack? 4-
> If there is no privacy issues I would states that explicitly.
>
> Thank you for this document,
>
> Ines.
>
>
>