From nobody Mon Jan 7 07:39:23 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: grow@ietf.org Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01EB3130EDD; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 07:39:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: grow@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.89.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: grow@ietf.org Message-ID: <154687556094.23309.13325861272031090417@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 07:39:20 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-01.txt X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 15:39:21 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Global Routing Operations WG of the IETF. Title : Well-Known Community Policy Behavior Authors : Jay Borkenhagen Randy Bush Ron Bonica Serpil Bayraktar Filename : draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-01.txt Pages : 6 Date : 2019-01-07 Abstract: Well-Known BGP Communities are manipulated inconsistently by current implementations. This results in difficulties for operators. Network operators are encouraged to deploy consistent community handling across their networks, taking the inconsistent behaviors from the various bgp implementations they operate into consideration. Also, bgp implementors are expected to not create any further inconsistencies from this point forward. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-01 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Jan 7 14:56:20 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0536512E7C1 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 14:56:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 D_RgklVwtPhJ for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 14:56:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from hrabosky.cbbtier3.att.net (braeburn.org [12.0.1.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DFC012E036 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 14:56:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from oz.mt.att.com (zoe.cbbtier3.att.net [12.0.1.45]) by hrabosky.cbbtier3.att.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B06F56F6B for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 22:56:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by oz.mt.att.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 81BB4A40D66; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 17:56:14 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: emacs 24.3.1 (via feedmail 11-beta-1 I); VM 8.2.0b under 24.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <23603.55561.429720.458742@oz.mt.att.com> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 17:56:09 -0500 From: Jay Borkenhagen To: grow@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <154687556094.23309.13325861272031090417@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <154687556094.23309.13325861272031090417@ietfa.amsl.com> Reply-To: Jay Borkenhagen X-GPG-Fingerprint: DDDB 542E D988 94D0 82D3 D198 7DED 6648 2308 D3C0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-01.txt X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 22:56:19 -0000 Hello Grow, The draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-01.txt posted today makes just a few small changes w.r.t. -00: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-01.txt Specifically: - the Abstract has been adjusted to indicate more clearly what things vendors should do and what things network operators should do. - some loose wording in the Introduction has been tightened up. - the Section 6 "Action Items" are clarified similarly to the clarifications in the Abstract. Also, in response to WGLC comments from David Farmer, a paragraph was added to urge network operators not to depend on any assumed treatment of bgp communities by any neighbor networks: for example, do not assume that your transmitted NO_EXPORT will be honored, unless the neighbor confirms that it will be. Thank you. Jay B. internet-drafts@ietf.org writes: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Global Routing Operations WG of the IETF. > > Title : Well-Known Community Policy Behavior > Authors : Jay Borkenhagen > Randy Bush > Ron Bonica > Serpil Bayraktar > Filename : draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-01.txt > Pages : 6 > Date : 2019-01-07 > > Abstract: > Well-Known BGP Communities are manipulated inconsistently by current > implementations. This results in difficulties for operators. > Network operators are encouraged to deploy consistent community > handling across their networks, taking the inconsistent behaviors > from the various bgp implementations they operate into consideration. > Also, bgp implementors are expected to not create any further > inconsistencies from this point forward. > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior/ > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-01 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-01 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-01 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > GROW@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow From nobody Wed Jan 16 13:50:58 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 042BA1311BD for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:50:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.253 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, KHOP_DYNAMIC=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net 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 lsadykgEcBLH for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:50:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com [67.231.152.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 413C3130ECA for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:50:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0108161.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x0GLgFUN007371 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:50:52 -0800 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=zu/QofBWDpEl1+XvC72/G0AtIRjMylgnbsGvoy+beys=; b=jlWopJhuANPNGZ1V0Jn+Ehzt0ry9rFKZ5o/jg+jZ4wijFtz2hfAf6KHVAbmcpBrwtckb Z37siyvK4/F7qzd+MP080It0R2fUnKBn0BjRysSXwRG8edjefYWmgwBxBHQjfbXSnSyW gfH6sg7CRuS6baO0nfsRptN36hi3L4JuK3fuRJLSbylJLMKud28/Or0uM454dFcPTEWg BnY3jmT6DOqrSqvPLaMheOGhct4q0m5kaDBWMzR6JyqKrB/XMwdeZ+46HaQ9ERcCkvJO kQxAOTreQZE+oF+YFRFMozIsOF5IyApoTmSwZ2X90M5XiHI0F0IH7eVtQ5AjToiQ6nvG Ew== Received: from nam03-co1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam03lp2051.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.40.51]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2q28d2geg3-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:50:52 -0800 Received: from SN6PR05MB5103.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (20.177.250.96) by SN6PR05MB4750.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.135.114.224) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1537.17; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 21:50:49 +0000 Received: from SN6PR05MB5103.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b16c:787c:7a8b:77c5]) by SN6PR05MB5103.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b16c:787c:7a8b:77c5%6]) with mapi id 15.20.1537.018; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 21:50:49 +0000 From: John Scudder To: "grow@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [GROW] working group last call draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib (ends 2018.11.26) Thread-Index: AQHUeDZeaw2eC8xTEkWu7rYQrdM1JqV/HHyAgASUlYCALymWAA== Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 21:50:49 +0000 Message-ID: <26D0E970-4BEC-4493-855D-C14B727D0D76@juniper.net> References: <20181109141246.GE18842@vurt.meerval.net> <8C375063-7E8E-413E-B8C0-07D2EE516160@juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <8C375063-7E8E-413E-B8C0-07D2EE516160@juniper.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.13] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; SN6PR05MB4750; 6:LZcfHFrxuXxZ/AyEUcKERXooApGuyHayl79kYGn5swPY1hqCCL6qjrGv1/yQgqLrHQ2AmHbD0HJFtHjDEnJnTXfHdPbuM5LzBcQgraiYMN9f4Ud6qet9XhPr7KBTJBWiHsoz70beuigtDjOcSgl1fO71gkAkqdQG03JqqML3PF+MoEbT78tw0K/ixzwoHIlIjoCPaZOBZyuf5RdkZQh4KdqMeAt3SK7kQ3gBMA1OC4d3PcI+ClcHh6b8NUWYHw/ZcBVUWPxFV1GffWPgLeuJ7IW2F0xT2TdwlUTNcEltS07yYVfqcR8G3FlfbnULieAJoqQbTL24HOvLFaBff4BT16rrSHkgzSfSOt4m64gNPfAOZgeMrhk12xVSwcdrHGfZQL/BwLTzN7C0dwEqoGnaCItTOrJOXOYesjHaPl1NJRm6QWFoV1jRhAnCyscQnp0e9Nyq7oDcCEc2jN2lJEg4UQ==; 5:w1RMDJ7TuYrukDzH1oHCQTh0WqBlU6VdnrSnIGWs4fTzJxLxNJSzQtl1Rn3Xv008uKi/KqCexzL8LD1Rxp3krL3nxWZkBUnZW1kWccTknh9ozCj3aLLzjWiBYouwTgLqZE0NujalmMFHloDvprI3OiBjjEgGjOoD4oTvTH9K2MAPXoXBYnG3mONtY5035rAS/MoMfq778CQ0ZM9MaTwCIA==; 7:ZVEdoTQSoyR5sioOYU23Th42aHEjndZymuJm+NyMw8c9YI9f6hg/HTKcuXoB8tVPs0pzrExMJU876JDiz9HUQL97VYNdDU9R0wqtqtSmX6YvC8bwHX6ghCNaArI6iAhQ7wDqCqU9Iab6bAo39KjCLQ== x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS; x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: ed057405-d8e7-4625-5c8c-08d67bfcadc4 x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600109)(711020)(4618075)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:SN6PR05MB4750; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: SN6PR05MB4750: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-forefront-prvs: 091949432C x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(346002)(396003)(376002)(366004)(39860400002)(136003)(189003)(199004)(229853002)(102836004)(81156014)(256004)(6306002)(1730700003)(6512007)(5640700003)(7736002)(305945005)(8936002)(53546011)(53936002)(6436002)(6486002)(14444005)(71200400001)(76176011)(36756003)(71190400001)(81166006)(6116002)(3846002)(66066001)(86362001)(83716004)(8676002)(82746002)(106356001)(33656002)(5660300001)(2351001)(478600001)(25786009)(14454004)(966005)(6246003)(6506007)(26005)(2501003)(2906002)(99286004)(2616005)(316002)(11346002)(476003)(446003)(486006)(6916009)(68736007)(97736004)(186003)(105586002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:SN6PR05MB4750; H:SN6PR05MB5103.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: RGdbmosyPBwRtYn7nZq8aPFDO+MC737ddF76ZIYKiLM7nc89gnvzcAFwFhMEpeZ+GtF7NKcRj9H6ldkEAwJVQ2wJfYblazp1jD9dReuYKro/yzvcBy/YqVs3zWjZcwh5L4lXQpNdm8uG9IPzWKoXAKsc0irtdYLHy9olAfceu5BPeLqHmzP8p6fzFz6hFl4m4lBeBEeduPlHORJ12GWOxvTLN2kwTkhKIG/NVDoTIZ6uf1JogJfDg+fwbvjZseW0qMVQNyyhmMArGF+bdcp0FvfwrbK3Pz/ePrbMqGy8ALOCpGbC0K4mRkQO6ZMrwm12yRBYoW1hEIVaOZUgARwJi2e16VZsfvXJ043f4i8FVP0spnWeHFSSdij5nBohoaOhnaAJwo1tXnOl75tCRSTADl/uIqbkQVohjJwcYCqf14s= spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <108C3B38C8106647A38CF6C082F36FD0@namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: ed057405-d8e7-4625-5c8c-08d67bfcadc4 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 16 Jan 2019 21:50:49.5825 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN6PR05MB4750 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-01-16_08:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1901160173 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [GROW] working group last call draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib (ends 2018.11.26) X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 21:50:56 -0000 Now that the holidays are safely (?) over, I'm bumping this topic (and the = previous message to it, which I assume everyone can find for themselves). --John > On Dec 17, 2018, at 4:37 PM, John Scudder wrote: >=20 > One further thought to this: >=20 >> On Dec 14, 2018, at 6:40 PM, John Scudder wrote: >>=20 >> Issue 1. draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib says: > .... >> This doesn't make sense to me, since the definition of reason 2 in RFC 7= 854 section 4.9 doesn't allow for any extra data: > .... >> An alternate fix, somewhat more involved but possibly useful in the long= run, would be to update RFC 7854 to permit Peer Down messages to carry add= itional data beyond the reason code and its own associated data, and then t= o define the format of that data. Probably the additional data would be TLV= ized. It would obviously need to have a registry created for it.=20 >=20 > It occurs to me that the main reason I can think of NOT to adopt this opt= ion would be that existing BMP server implementations might choke on new-st= yle PDUs as described above, since they are illegal per the base spec. The = fact RFC 7854 is underspecified as to what if any error checking and enforc= ement should be done, makes this maybe somewhat less of a concern (there's = no mandated "you must reset the session upon protocol errors") but there's = still no guarantee a server wouldn't experience an internal error. >=20 > Whether the WG thinks this is a genuine concern or not, is a matter for d= iscussion. Reasons to think it's not a big deal include, >=20 > - I would hope most server implementations would be robust to this kind o= f malformation, but I don't actually know, I can just apply the "well that'= s how I would have done it" heuristic, which a pretty weak one. > - Presumably the extra (nonconformant to RFC 7854) TLV would only be emit= ted when Loc-RIB functionality was configured, and presumably Loc-RIB funct= ionality would only be configured if the server on the other end supported = consuming it (otherwise why bother), Q.E.D. only a compliant server would s= ee the new TLV. >=20 > Reasons to think it is a big deal include reflexive conservatism, which i= s not always a bad thing in networking standards.=20 >=20 > By contrast, the other option I offered, allocating a new Reason code tha= t includes a string field, is guaranteed to be backward-compatible with com= pliant implementations. And by "guaranteed" I mean "probably" since I see R= FC 7854 section 4.9 doesn't explicitly say "you have to be tolerant of unre= cognized Reason codes", however, I think this is a pretty good bet. It's ce= rtainly the more conservative option. >=20 > $0.02, >=20 > --John > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > GROW@ietf.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=3Dhttps-3A__www.ietf.org_mailm= an_listinfo_grow&d=3DDwICAg&c=3DHAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI= &r=3DhLt5iDJpw7ukqICc0hoT7A&m=3DutvYcoebXr3QSPs9cdM9P7Cv6pScVERGzE35h9RAf40= &s=3DRVl2YX_bCdXH2LUx2OZdc2Ys8WBT_vt3Mcfe3clvKtU&e=3D From nobody Wed Jan 16 13:51:56 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B13B1311ED for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:51:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.253 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, KHOP_DYNAMIC=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net 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 bU4yLhcJdbJ5 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:51:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C93B1311CB for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:51:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0108159.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x0GLg2o4027435 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:51:31 -0800 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=S675yhjU5FZEjeKuB6MMgaIUfabqeF2wKz21HCUy/R4=; b=WaGtLR2aiPh3ovFqzJTQQN/4K7bcfPn4qo3MtQCHkIUCaBsXg1Doa86dluMkYGK9DQf9 KdBmpRQq8Ref8TcDForBCUB8YUPeJTvFNR4kCbZogzFferAoS3kpvyWLcKbgcW9Z/0Zh KI+4ME01hxMPlc75H8B1dL5Bs/lyDqsEGyPxiN1I6vCdi5HA1LXT9Qz5TWqRyDcDzm2C GsNVVYuNbm4bCvhUSWsVRBsKudtiMsNTvX7Ho0bx6HhoC2KRuNJYrtH4Cn7/RWbmxJUb n60uBjQqvODD1X4kxGHEAZ656m60cg+FWuEpT3LwTz4YfU4F4WbpLuN5e2//LrHFWsAK pA== Received: from nam04-co1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam04lp2052.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.45.52]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2q26aerpnq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 13:51:31 -0800 Received: from SN6PR05MB5103.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (20.177.250.96) by SN6PR05MB4943.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.135.117.77) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1558.8; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 21:51:28 +0000 Received: from SN6PR05MB5103.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b16c:787c:7a8b:77c5]) by SN6PR05MB5103.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b16c:787c:7a8b:77c5%6]) with mapi id 15.20.1537.018; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 21:51:28 +0000 From: John Scudder To: "grow@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [GROW] Separating the BMP Initiation and Peer Up namespaces Thread-Index: AQHUlAaPj/fZEhzrn0SQPCcizpmEuqWyozWA Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 21:51:28 +0000 Message-ID: <856EC976-1E2A-4D40-8A01-9F04E9E1D326@juniper.net> References: <90D2CB67-C0B7-45BB-970A-528B117E4645@juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <90D2CB67-C0B7-45BB-970A-528B117E4645@juniper.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.13] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; SN6PR05MB4943; 6:44eSb3HdqrAmrzYrspDvJVmzxScGeJsMHMvp56xdtNWNjNsYbVyrO0g+wzNiEJuhM8ijA/IJELml9oAaCdB2nnSoTvPXsPe5Vo3wpXWiAdyCDu2ATpywYhNsByVACCalhlv3Dz2doMWUHutzJfxuEnfoJVgFiyPxtiLaN5MqUtPisPDVANfjyt5HTKqzG7FUy9MmranRngeOYO+5XnpA/ezYqy9xYWHfXTKmE9pUrloOpMZim4ChNsy2Nglzce55RMq2pp7Xpsz1s/0phnlOUhC2yNf21fPCoBkEkSonM1opmQbydaAgRQKypMRKJmTN88oHfsENLQsFRZi4EY5P2VfUuiFDs9R9sCTF5bnw0S7/kvfr8ccNOx1uQBQ29IXaq16qdq1HnYqcYXMDfNUa5GlLH0ZKyKVUv7hDv47Gc5SdpDqgCSQRa/J8gi253ZuW70CsbxwEKDcYl8MY0/TfHw==; 5:5rciGEHXfPzt1oAR6NgOK5ViMphICG1+pWVqDCwPffZckCpZaOCiaIUIscK24oz5dHrsT83yjGF5Cu+3sHL2MnbyrWcHLQxrGw1a6YoyWOdIrckbegCwJv8vSFDhkmZMADqOpbDyrreZd1eNSPXBQeELlN8beruNYkxq0RdILeyiMAmWpfPVmamnQYv/7wncpRdJRoFNCIncVAxqufpw7w==; 7:5CuKhp6sY9r+jmfv/kC0s9vdVqvF1BGR+2Gp2Hr7ExNz5TJQNvt/aaNgDGbf+xlOyxmOIDI+t6v9W0kghPg1Lhh9zp71eu0sz5sEf6DMfBqNyDL12am/pvmyyl/mszmzxds+5pxCb90i3LPca+QVgw== x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS; x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 07dd2914-8343-456d-cc2a-08d67bfcc51f x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600109)(711020)(4618075)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:SN6PR05MB4943; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: SN6PR05MB4943: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-forefront-prvs: 091949432C x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(366004)(136003)(39860400002)(396003)(346002)(376002)(199004)(189003)(53754006)(8676002)(81156014)(1730700003)(7736002)(486006)(81166006)(305945005)(316002)(6306002)(966005)(68736007)(256004)(97736004)(5640700003)(36756003)(6916009)(8936002)(229853002)(6436002)(6486002)(105586002)(106356001)(33656002)(82746002)(2351001)(446003)(11346002)(2501003)(2616005)(102836004)(2906002)(99286004)(186003)(476003)(26005)(76176011)(14454004)(6506007)(5660300001)(83716004)(71190400001)(71200400001)(6246003)(6512007)(66066001)(6116002)(478600001)(3846002)(53936002)(53546011)(86362001)(25786009); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:SN6PR05MB4943; H:SN6PR05MB5103.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: NCakW1xvBsHGVeXZY959uvdRUu0Gf5zvvTM5N+TJa0+sC40IYBMuYTZxQQh9WbNMM4Un4JTccnQv61j41siV47koF5G+BxjBfBiv+93xU5Sja80qjZi+QYNyDNyzR6y4igrJbD5LomoiyRMLrtr/zLg0B91GmDecB5gezhCVjlE70hqGdkNnyvAM+8Rxgty7sf+71HgHcl6TDWbqe5HNZ7seyBjpIBm5QKRwZN3LCFuZT7n7vLRZN/Pd7HqaRDM+V0ezDFKJtLQgxBLWc3GR3+4N2GlFunFWck9yQA4iJYecZWOFvqW7ks5OWJ1T1IoqE0fxH1Og0xSTPV8pUm391sZl0V/D2sbYRziXVDCieNs8x16YmKwLD9BKBDeLMjYx3nGH8SQ9QizD4catGHwyJ+s1l65Wpf2UPPLAeqFgius= spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <190BE11D742FAB4A89EA11003E050CC2@namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 07dd2914-8343-456d-cc2a-08d67bfcc51f X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 16 Jan 2019 21:51:28.7493 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN6PR05MB4943 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-01-16_08:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1901160173 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [GROW] Separating the BMP Initiation and Peer Up namespaces X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 21:51:42 -0000 Also bumping this one. --John > On Dec 14, 2018, at 6:41 PM, John Scudder wrote: >=20 > Hi All, >=20 > As I mentioned in the other thread, I think it was a mistake for Peer Up = and Initiation to share a namespace in RFC 7854. The fact that it's difficu= lt to get the text right in draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib demonstrates this= . >=20 > My suggestion is that we separate the namespaces. I've written and submit= ted a short draft to do it, draft-scudder-grow-bmp-peer-up-00.txt [1]. It s= eemed the most expedient way to describe the suggested approach. If the WG = likes the idea, we can adopt it, or if the WG wants to fix it a different w= ay, let's discuss. >=20 > An alternate solution would be to embrace the Information TLV as a namesp= ace that's shared between multiple messages (the implication in draft-ietf-= grow-bmp-local-rib that the Information TLV could be included in Peer Down = suggests that's what the authors imagine would happen). I don't prefer this= because it requires enumeration of exceptions ("foo Information type only = applies when carried in such-and-such BMP message type..."). Independent na= mespaces ends up being a little wordier but less error-prone, IMO. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > --John >=20 > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=3Dhttps-3A__www.ietf.org_i= d_draft-2Dscudder-2Dgrow-2Dbmp-2Dpeer-2Dup-2D00.txt&d=3DDwICAg&c=3DHAkYuh63= rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=3DhLt5iDJpw7ukqICc0hoT7A&m=3DD7IqMWtd= ausMkdGGw6TfUPIh8G7-jy-nCqGt8a4mysw&s=3DKiqiStww6xXZe8HN7VoUO2WcW049EmV0bIp= jjeFkvPg&e=3D > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > GROW@ietf.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=3Dhttps-3A__www.ietf.org_mailm= an_listinfo_grow&d=3DDwICAg&c=3DHAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI= &r=3DhLt5iDJpw7ukqICc0hoT7A&m=3DD7IqMWtdausMkdGGw6TfUPIh8G7-jy-nCqGt8a4mysw= &s=3D7y0yLjzXTHGgjIubMs5n5pu9fspj-FApMH7efiVImRU&e=3D From nobody Mon Jan 21 04:51:57 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 003A712DD85 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 04:51:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 w-QBFNRNZdnh for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 04:51:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ed1-f45.google.com (mail-ed1-f45.google.com [209.85.208.45]) (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 F2CD0124B0C for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 04:51:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ed1-f45.google.com with SMTP id f23so16509201edb.3 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 04:51:53 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=MUB0CyX86D5+6gfhlyn4K1vDPfzASDyRK7imPcDFQdw=; b=lO3CGJW0sQ015PGnv2pd8WHXLh/zm0f4wDDOqDnJEw3emNZ+3YAIQF4KDkzCPF4Ago kY2VCZAz/zL5ZMwuVXkZGOm4P3l8yacuXO3J5DVvOL4pLuJoFbAa61KYgvfhVLZ67/KA ZUsf1JBNMN4PmCdrjLXDaGJuMsXDby9o0wK7BT2bHN877isEIMwWpJW50tvuj1/Ss+9C kZKZFKG/Yzlzlk93BL9w+rTO6WLY7oOD+dWlyIQbMh8i+3Z6hKceIz36NFe80Joph0eD xDQch0uEncp3BGOOZFu31nIdkxRgM75bu0SPlcyGHLluDDsVWoc8zQpMeIL4b2usIQYo BkBA== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukd+vuVsX5o84Qy7pZmRkyiAjCfcL0ft15KsYga9QAPB0NzM05aE a3t3yaUBxs/3AjfnOd2s9DkpIw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN5sKt3Nv7QWBV5fUPMbc6Nx4P5ublkwJ57IlIj4o0P9YjkzrG6N1uMB63ubfHtmFo31ALfydQ== X-Received: by 2002:a50:8466:: with SMTP id 93mr26837559edp.209.1548075112222; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 04:51:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([2001:67c:208c:10:1cf6:a6c:b63e:725d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j21-v6sm5040358ejz.51.2019.01.21.04.51.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 21 Jan 2019 04:51:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 13:51:50 +0100 From: Job Snijders To: Jay Borkenhagen , grow@ietf.org Message-ID: <20190121125150.GI1185@hanna.meerval.net> References: <154687556094.23309.13325861272031090417@ietfa.amsl.com> <23603.55561.429720.458742@oz.mt.att.com> <23605.14789.118735.489476@oz.mt.att.com> <20190118102658.GA1185@hanna.meerval.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190118102658.GA1185@hanna.meerval.net> X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1 (2018-12-01) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-01.txt X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 12:51:56 -0000 resending to include working group On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:26:58AM +0100, Job Snijders wrote: > Dear Jay, > > On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 07:01:09PM -0500, Jay Borkenhagen wrote: > > Since Job's message of 10-December extending the WGLC by one week, I > > have seen only two replies, both on-list, both in support of > > publication. > > > > One respondent (Shunwan) recommended collecting more vendor defaults. > > I am not opposed to that, but (i) I would expect vendors (or possibly > > their customers) to volunteer that information, and (ii) I'm not sure > > the document is actually improved by listing more behaviors -- I think > > it's good enough to let people know that different behaviors exist, > > and that vendors are unlikely to change their defaults now, so network > > operators need to take care in this regard. > > That seems reasonable. > > > David Farmer also responded. David's point that some operators have > > been surprised by a neighbor network's handling of NO_EXPORT is valid. > > I believe that -01 addresses it -- just not in the way that David had > > suggested. > > > > So, how do you esteemed chairs suggest we proceed now? > > I think the document is mostly ready to proceed down the publication > pipeline, but speaking as WG participant I'm not entirely sure about a > normative term in the Action Items section: > > "Vendors MUST ensure that any well-known communities specified after > this document's publication are removed by the "community set" > action." > > While I think I understand the intent, but I'm not convinced this is the > right approach, the implications of the sentence are complex. Since > there is no formal definition of what "community set" means in all > contexts, we should treat it as pseudo-code, which means (lacking > definitions of what it /is/), we shouldn't be specifying what it /is > not/. What perhaps can be specified is that 'new WKC' should be treated > the same as the implementation treats regular communities when it comes > to add or remove actions, to avoid increasing the inconsistency? > > On the other side, the sentence "Vendors SHOULD share the behavior of > their implementations" perhaps can be made stronger by replacing the > SHOULD with a MUST. And perhaps remove the phrase "for inclusion in this > document". > > Another action item could be to suggest that operators should avoid > using routing policy language constructs that treat some communities > special, e.g. avoiding the use of 'community set' will result in easier > to read and more consistent configurations across multiple platforms. > > Kind regards, > > Job From nobody Mon Jan 21 05:55:25 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA0D0129508 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 05:55:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu 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 MDylv1pb_1Ip for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 05:55:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79C56130ECD for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 05:55:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42C91C38 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 13:55:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jcgG7igeUhxc for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 07:55:17 -0600 (CST) Received: from mail-vk1-f200.google.com (mail-vk1-f200.google.com [209.85.221.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06169C61 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 07:55:16 -0600 (CST) Received: by mail-vk1-f200.google.com with SMTP id o11so4136708vke.5 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 05:55:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=k8xQ1h2S6h8lGR6//21x3daWnEoosmO+U/H8t9RE2hE=; b=c+cAJMPzPa+fytuSdPqggpP3m7HDCGXBTeba0U3TTap0AW37quJOJ44ngA7v5JiWgU WSHqXxdAZuQZF8iGBDAuUvAWAupG004F23zWsSQw8v/5k4a3f73MYWt9RGDqgiBs7xp8 q8T0vX1ImW3ykPtfZcH5iGTkP8yjjlyvCIKtnWF9D6M1srMiAeePu6hu/QRbALFc1cc8 iePXppLn9wszjZF9zK5sVtJw+rpVKv99OYFwcwP4qkoA+k/9H7sct2ssI1fmX/63cd2X e8Vb5xQO2JiKHhubqzWot3sSiba4kboCvsrvh7fdM6vS/C7xMldDWe+7QKfD8SgWrG6C EAjQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=k8xQ1h2S6h8lGR6//21x3daWnEoosmO+U/H8t9RE2hE=; b=e4Aoj9roYbO7pxMpx0Dh3x8m+lX6Pz3appb98RsVQWlJI+s61LPISOdn3hzYnUZ1kI /sRmepnfwSXscDdCKVk7Pyt1Xh3ZoGGEHb933SGWLlpxDW6OU4yclRdc+4eDGo8Qd1SV YiLPxMUN/RFLTKsa8oUkNRgPaK8F9UfYRmMAVx88+pnVhW95oHhexOrTncV2XiweoLAm x0VgqcZzxODOjzGazvSe5E+gnItvxXtIgz35/ZhndNZdAnJuMrX6dk0xfKcGRmoo6L4n 3JvpgdGoInBH7SPDECp3SMOgz3t+O4hXxmqYGnigHRmLNK+4qj5RQ7tz8xIfFhj8GOZk 4xhg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukdiesx+sKzER9KUNEyxJRhlARUAMPTBl1cmy/dFY72shAPLotAg I87bXv8iNn6pj6yaRTl6ZD0kBFK/FXphbYM8VlLu5W1IqBorTCkOnoPmu5cWd6MLfg8RmIft88s pMkN67hlBN4NvnQw8qorJyNhk X-Received: by 2002:a1f:2ed7:: with SMTP id u206mr11441320vku.72.1548078915914; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 05:55:15 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN6W/sXS4rd1eWeIFj7Ece9ROLR/jXofPUWYealoTaV9RbkaoSEROG/o6rrrToq8mDLpfHD3XX0his2fAl/iPkA= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:2ed7:: with SMTP id u206mr11441308vku.72.1548078915489; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 05:55:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <154687556094.23309.13325861272031090417@ietfa.amsl.com> <23603.55561.429720.458742@oz.mt.att.com> In-Reply-To: <23603.55561.429720.458742@oz.mt.att.com> From: David Farmer Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 07:54:59 -0600 Message-ID: To: Jay Borkenhagen Cc: grow@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d7ab2a057ff835cf" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-01.txt X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 13:55:22 -0000 --000000000000d7ab2a057ff835cf Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" See inline. On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 4:56 PM Jay Borkenhagen wrote: > Hello Grow, > > The draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-01.txt posted today makes just a few > small changes w.r.t. -00: > > https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-01.txt > > Specifically: > > - the Abstract has been adjusted to indicate more clearly what things > vendors should do and what things network operators should do. > > - some loose wording in the Introduction has been tightened up. > > - the Section 6 "Action Items" are clarified similarly to the > clarifications in the Abstract. Also, in response to WGLC comments > from David Farmer, a paragraph was added to urge network operators > not to depend on any assumed treatment of bgp communities by any > neighbor networks: for example, do not assume that your transmitted > NO_EXPORT will be honored, unless the neighbor confirms that it will > be. > Your statement effectively changes the three Well-Known Communities defined in RFC1997 from "MUST NOT" to "SHOULD NOT". Basically, if you can not rely on those communities not being stripped then "MUST NOT" is way too strong of a statement. Maybe formally updating RFC1997 and changing the definition of the three communities to "SHOULD NOT" is an appropriate addition to this document. Also, a meta-data link from RFC1997 to this document seems like a good idea in general and by effect references in IANA Well-Known Community Registry to this document as well. Thanks -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== --000000000000d7ab2a057ff835cf Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Se= e inline.

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 4:56 PM Jay Borkenhagen <jayb@braeburn.org> wrote:
=
Hello Grow,

The draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-01.txt posted today makes just a few
small changes w.r.t. -00:

=C2=A0https://tools.ietf.or= g/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-01.txt

Specifically:

- the Abstract has been adjusted to indicate more clearly what things
=C2=A0 vendors should do and what things network operators should do.

- some loose wording in the Introduction has been tightened up.

- the Section 6 "Action Items" are clarified similarly to the
=C2=A0 clarifications in the Abstract.=C2=A0 Also, in response to WGLC comm= ents
=C2=A0 from David Farmer, a paragraph was added to urge network operators =C2=A0 not to depend on any assumed treatment of bgp communities by any
=C2=A0 neighbor networks: for example, do not assume that your transmitted<= br> =C2=A0 NO_EXPORT will be honored, unless the neighbor confirms that it will=
=C2=A0 be.

Your statement effectively changes the three Well-Known Co= mmunities defined in RFC1997 from "MUST NOT" to "SHOULD NOT&= quot;. Basically, if you can not rely on those communities not being stripp= ed then "MUST NOT" is way too strong of a statement. Maybe formal= ly updating RFC1997 and changing the definition of the three communities to= "SHOULD NOT" is an appropriate addition to this document.=C2=A0 = Also, a meta-data link from RFC1997 to this document seems like a good idea= in general and by effect references in IANA Well-Known Community Registry = to this document as well.

Thanks

--
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
David Farmer=C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking &am= p; Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
Univer= sity of Minnesota=C2=A0=C2=A0
2218 University Ave SE=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029=C2=A0=C2=A0 Ce= ll: 612-812-9952
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D
--000000000000d7ab2a057ff835cf-- From nobody Mon Jan 21 09:03:31 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86376127B4C for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 09:03:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 0JvP8QMTfEaI for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 09:03:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from guelah.shrubbery.net (guelah.shrubbery.net [198.58.5.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E99411274D0 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 09:03:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by guelah.shrubbery.net (Postfix, from userid 7053) id 4CB212F98A; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 17:03:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 17:03:28 +0000 From: heasley To: Job Snijders Cc: Jay Borkenhagen , grow@ietf.org Message-ID: <20190121170328.GB49476@shrubbery.net> References: <154687556094.23309.13325861272031090417@ietfa.amsl.com> <23603.55561.429720.458742@oz.mt.att.com> <23605.14789.118735.489476@oz.mt.att.com> <20190118102658.GA1185@hanna.meerval.net> <20190121125150.GI1185@hanna.meerval.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190121125150.GI1185@hanna.meerval.net> X-PGPkey: http://www.shrubbery.net/~heas/public-key.asc X-note: live free, or die! X-homer: i just want to have a beer while i am caring. X-Claimation: an engineer needs a manager like a fish needs a bicycle X-reality: only YOU can put an end to the embarrassment that is Tom Cruise User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1 (2018-12-01) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-01.txt X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 17:03:31 -0000 Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 01:51:50PM +0100, Job Snijders: > > On the other side, the sentence "Vendors SHOULD share the behavior of > > their implementations" perhaps can be made stronger by replacing the > > SHOULD with a MUST. And perhaps remove the phrase "for inclusion in this > > document". s/share/clearly document/ is perhaps what is meant? From nobody Mon Jan 21 20:28:49 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D33DC131069 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 20:28:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.642 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.142, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 QcK_z-9Z0IV6 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 20:28:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 562F913106C for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 20:28:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=917; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1548131325; x=1549340925; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=y4fzhnE2EA/nyzDMXpaTA8833mtN1ZkB+fobTfLj1L4=; b=WluK8IgyDvlI6/F6S8ApkvRkJxVSr0tVY6TsOx1uEGV9EZGAPXDgfwVt RLd3T6zHrguy/3csFlxc4IrrjJWfjhLXqaWF+wUqKIFN+X3UZBdhkO22v Wgraw/BRTfUfhx8tUSS+If5i06Dyg69Xd5FvqsrtKQBolZypEpqWDoJ1C c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ADAAA0m0Zc/40NJK1kGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBggNmgQInCowRi2eCDZgBgXsLAQEYC4R?= =?us-ascii?q?JAoJhIjQJDQEDAQECAQECbRwMhUoBAQEBAwEBODQLDAQCAQgRBAEBHxAnCx0?= =?us-ascii?q?IAgQBDQUIDIMPggEPrWyKIgWMQReBQD+BEYMSgx4BAYdBAqIgCQKSESCBZoU?= =?us-ascii?q?uiwCKBJByAhEUgScfOIFWcBU7gmyLHYU/QTGJaoEfAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,504,1539648000"; d="scan'208";a="508087985" Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Jan 2019 04:28:44 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com (xch-aln-014.cisco.com [173.36.7.24]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x0M4Sikr001555 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 22 Jan 2019 04:28:44 GMT Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) by XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 22:28:43 -0600 Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) by XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 22:28:43 -0600 From: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" To: heasley , Job Snijders CC: "grow@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHUpp8yEKWQ2uGuLkyaoi/IPgTDDaWkz7KAgBTzTyGAAKrKAIAAWdsg Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 04:28:43 +0000 Message-ID: <8648ea482ec94188b28b028e0c1f0361@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> References: <154687556094.23309.13325861272031090417@ietfa.amsl.com> <23603.55561.429720.458742@oz.mt.att.com> <23605.14789.118735.489476@oz.mt.att.com> <20190118102658.GA1185@hanna.meerval.net> <20190121125150.GI1185@hanna.meerval.net> <20190121170328.GB49476@shrubbery.net> In-Reply-To: <20190121170328.GB49476@shrubbery.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.24.78.207] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.24, xch-aln-014.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-8.cisco.com Archived-At: Subject: Re: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-01.txt X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 04:28:48 -0000 Could you change "community set" to "set community" in action items please. "community set" can also refer to a set of communities, the container kind = of set. Regards, Jakob. -----Original Message----- From: GROW On Behalf Of heasley Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 9:03 AM To: Job Snijders Cc: grow@ietf.org Subject: Re: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-01.txt Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 01:51:50PM +0100, Job Snijders: > > On the other side, the sentence "Vendors SHOULD share the behavior of > > their implementations" perhaps can be made stronger by replacing the > > SHOULD with a MUST. And perhaps remove the phrase "for inclusion in thi= s > > document". s/share/clearly document/ is perhaps what is meant? _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow From nobody Tue Jan 22 16:34:23 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: grow@ietf.org Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F9171311CD; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 16:33:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: grow@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.90.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: grow@ietf.org Message-ID: <154820363633.13324.10803743178194375311@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 16:33:56 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-02.txt X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 00:33:57 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Global Routing Operations WG of the IETF. Title : Well-Known Community Policy Behavior Authors : Jay Borkenhagen Randy Bush Ron Bonica Serpil Bayraktar Filename : draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-02.txt Pages : 6 Date : 2019-01-22 Abstract: Well-Known BGP Communities are manipulated inconsistently by current implementations. This results in difficulties for operators. Network operators are encouraged to deploy consistent community handling across their networks, taking the inconsistent behaviors from the various bgp implementations they operate into consideration. Also, bgp implementors are expected to not create any further inconsistencies from this point forward. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-02 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-02 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Jan 22 17:05:47 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F0A131175 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:05:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 nVnvp09WJaDW for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:05:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from hrabosky.cbbtier3.att.net (braeburn.org [12.0.1.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43D4612E036 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:05:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from oz.mt.att.com (zoe.cbbtier3.att.net [12.0.1.45]) by hrabosky.cbbtier3.att.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB6E9A949 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 01:05:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by oz.mt.att.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9CA2EA40B60; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 20:05:42 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: emacs 24.3.1 (via feedmail 11-beta-1 I); VM 8.2.0b under 24.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <23623.48612.596866.590515@oz.mt.att.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 20:05:40 -0500 From: Jay Borkenhagen To: grow@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <154820363633.13324.10803743178194375311@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <154820363633.13324.10803743178194375311@ietfa.amsl.com> Reply-To: Jay Borkenhagen X-GPG-Fingerprint: DDDB 542E D988 94D0 82D3 D198 7DED 6648 2308 D3C0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-02.txt X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 01:05:46 -0000 Hello GROW, The draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-02.txt just posted makes very few very small changes w.r.t. -01: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-02.txt - We introduce the nomenclature of 'the "set" directive' instead of using "set community" or "community set" when speaking in general terms, addressing a comment from Jakob Heitz. - We slightly re-worded Section 6. "Action Items" in response to comments raised by Job Snijders, adopting suggested wording from John Heasley. (Thanks, Heas.) Regarding David Farmer's suggestion that RFC1997 needs to be updated: speaking for myself, I would be satisfied leaving RFC1997 as-is while this draft documents RFC1997's shortcomings. Anyone with strong feelings to the contrary may write that draft. Thanks! Jay B. internet-drafts@ietf.org writes: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Global Routing Operations WG of the IETF. > > Title : Well-Known Community Policy Behavior > Authors : Jay Borkenhagen > Randy Bush > Ron Bonica > Serpil Bayraktar > Filename : draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-02.txt > Pages : 6 > Date : 2019-01-22 > > Abstract: > Well-Known BGP Communities are manipulated inconsistently by current > implementations. This results in difficulties for operators. > Network operators are encouraged to deploy consistent community > handling across their networks, taking the inconsistent behaviors > from the various bgp implementations they operate into consideration. > Also, bgp implementors are expected to not create any further > inconsistencies from this point forward. > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior/ > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-02 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-02 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-02 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > GROW@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow From nobody Tue Jan 22 23:18:33 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A32FA130E25 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 23:18:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu 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 FI5jVPvOYMrX for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 23:18:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92B031294D0 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 23:18:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8520CE7 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:18:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30bhqb_4YskR for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 01:18:29 -0600 (CST) Received: from mail-vs1-f71.google.com (mail-vs1-f71.google.com [209.85.217.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D021AF4 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 01:18:29 -0600 (CST) Received: by mail-vs1-f71.google.com with SMTP id e81so491140vsd.23 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 23:18:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zKn5d5S+xCTsWuQQwMr+b/gmcfFAztuy6NwIU6Estu0=; b=NEoh/rAj8TQkX0TeE4+5d+IpCRQenQWvPlakPTcMpviCmH51UFeCTpYZT8N26KyP/K oyXUWZt4dkwcP492LkGw35QbO7NpUhlhP+Z2+1ZqP88Ws6oL2MvaBsi73pDRoNwd+zl9 z2Kpf85SBmLRACWSJ51DcINPT5v9NzP9T2hay6OA1FwEDsox/QM+1lgNqzt+WyM/DYnP RLOvh6LCJzR0c2wsmQAVp7Fx67cCow+5Fgh+ELv951HKe3UXgDvRiRt+beE8p981eTAH tsCxjgOQhlZekk5aNdgp4901gfxEOaqoZkdPy1ttRVwJ2liVXJJPmttrpo+uEL1vWbn5 wnYg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zKn5d5S+xCTsWuQQwMr+b/gmcfFAztuy6NwIU6Estu0=; b=KkrJ/kLRLbrrlCY0sDHwkpxFOZvz3PEyMtInHhfjKqOsytJu5MXtw0ENoUlWblN5ze dCcVKQmpmm9+xBhUqbF4/n8MoPByU5472D/lARqdDOfqTNuhdxLq0SxWe8n10Q3IiTgJ /66TOjSuhkXrzUDPC6+BhGLpzd1Mz0HOEavTwDHjVHFcMn/3DqjdWHboeBR6fUHt6jhp 4CXAq2LJPT7FynYT6fgBkAXhUZzOFDJJaSXUaMIvB38k3O2OYJR5qySLySqSSirEiA6s mUBd1QnZTfFmRbDRBqvdurVqNt9YpQoeZDd+M9NgkAjaNtQ7J+3VOqxwcqD1KFzSx+OJ AbWg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukeQiNfxroH3kD/6YakFwGVrkUmw+FE8dRJQSGwfVmeCjFyfH1Qk kiPq0DzurFF1BeqVgwpSvBGjYOBTA8AnXMTGOCC8CMi5fJtRSWHbmVk2zPBjmCqKv2hyag/jCN9 7JXCE1WaWg63ys1K/xV6Kqij2 X-Received: by 2002:a1f:acd7:: with SMTP id v206mr411658vke.5.1548227908160; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 23:18:28 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN5cMtKi3AHgYz/OWjfQXxW4IFk7Le3DnimcFYBy0CWjclYlaP+ERS4PXUSxDoYvX0psboKf88YwtEAgoUJGHB8= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:acd7:: with SMTP id v206mr411651vke.5.1548227907758; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 23:18:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <154820363633.13324.10803743178194375311@ietfa.amsl.com> <23623.48612.596866.590515@oz.mt.att.com> In-Reply-To: <23623.48612.596866.590515@oz.mt.att.com> From: David Farmer Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 01:18:11 -0600 Message-ID: To: Jay Borkenhagen Cc: grow@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007948d205801ae644" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-02.txt X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:18:33 -0000 --0000000000007948d205801ae644 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 7:05 PM Jay Borkenhagen wrote: > > Regarding David Farmer's suggestion that RFC1997 needs to be updated: > speaking for myself, I would be satisfied leaving RFC1997 as-is while > this draft documents RFC1997's shortcomings. Anyone with strong > feelings to the contrary may write that draft. > Thinking this through a little more there are two separate issues that seem to be treated as one; 1. I suggested changing "MUST NOT be advertised" to "SHOULD NOT be advertised" in the definition of the three Well-Known Communities provided in RFC 1997. a. Since BGP Communities are advisory in the first place, an absolute prohibition seems out of place, especially when the default "set" directive by most implementations results in the behavior that is prohibited by the statement. b. While I think it would be a good idea to fix this now, if that doesn't happen, I can live with it the way it is. 2. However separately, if this document doesn't provide a meta-data link updating RFC 1997, or a reference to this document is not somehow included in the IANA Well-Known Communities Registry, how are implementers of RFC 1997 BGP Community to know they "MUST ensure that any Well-Known Communities specified after this document's publication are removed by their "set" directive." By my understanding, this new requirment is updating RFC 1997, so a meta-data linkage is warranted in my mind, even without #1 above. Thanks. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== --0000000000007948d205801ae644 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at = 7:05 PM Jay Borkenhagen <jayb@braeburn.org> wrote:

Regarding David Farmer's suggestion that RFC1997 needs to be updated: speaking for myself, I would be satisfied leaving RFC1997 as-is while
this draft documents RFC1997's shortcomings.=C2=A0 Anyone with strong feelings to the contrary may write that draft.
=C2=A0<= /div>Thinking this through a little more there are two separate issues that= seem to be treated as one;

1.=C2=A0 I suggested changing "MUST= NOT be advertised" to "SHOULD NOT be advertised" in the def= inition of the three Well-Known Communities provided in RFC 1997.

= =C2=A0 a. Since BGP Communities are advisory in the first place, an absolut= e prohibition seems out of place, especially when the default "set&quo= t; directive by most implementations results in the behavior that is prohib= ited by the statement.

=C2=A0 b. While I think it would be a good id= ea to fix this now, if that doesn't happen, I can live with it the way = it is.

2. However separately, if this document doesn't provide a= meta-data link updating RFC 1997, or a reference to this document is not s= omehow included in the IANA Well-Known Communities Registry, how are implem= enters of RFC 1997 BGP Community to know they "MUST ensure that any We= ll-Known Communities specified after this document's publication are re= moved by their "set" directive."=C2=A0 By my understanding, = this new requirment is updating RFC 1997, so a meta-data linkage is warrant= ed in my mind, even without #1 above.

Thanks.

--
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
David Farmer=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Service= s
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota=C2=A0=C2= =A0
2218 University Ave SE=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Phone: 612-626-08= 15
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029=C2=A0=C2=A0 Cell: 612-812-9952
=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
--0000000000007948d205801ae644-- From nobody Wed Jan 23 06:04:56 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBBFD12DF71 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 06:04:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 6qV4AUvzpdk2 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 06:04:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail3.dllstx09.us.to.gin.ntt.net (mail3.dllstx09.us.to.gin.ntt.net [IPv6:2001:418:3ff:5::26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D12A128CE4 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 06:04:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail3.dllstx09.us.to.gin.ntt.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1gmJ99-000DEs-4q (paolo@us.ntt.net); Wed, 23 Jan 2019 14:04:51 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Paolo Lucente In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 15:04:45 +0100 Cc: "grow@ietf.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20181109141246.GE18842@vurt.meerval.net> To: John Scudder X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [GROW] working group last call draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib (ends 2018.11.26) X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 14:04:55 -0000 Hi John, [shared text] Ideally, i would like every BMP message type to have a = (optional) TLV section, each with a own namespace. If the idea is = shared, i=E2=80=99d look forward to see how to get there. > On 15 Dec 2018, at 00:40, John Scudder wrote: >=20 > [ .. ] >=20 > One fix, I think the more expedient one, would be to request a new = reason code ("TBD3"), whose format includes both the content carried in = reason 2, and a VRF/Table Name. Then if you want to send the table name, = you use the new reason code. >=20 > An alternate fix, somewhat more involved but possibly useful in the = long run, would be to update RFC 7854 to permit Peer Down messages to = carry additional data beyond the reason code and its own associated = data, and then to define the format of that data. Probably the = additional data would be TLVized. It would obviously need to have a = registry created for it. If i get you correctly, updating RFC7854 is what would get to the ideal = scenario above. I feel, for the reasons you explain, this is the kind of = change that would require a version bump in order to make it clean. = Perhaps a longer term plan, where we do also tackle the subject of TLV & = Route Monitor message? Although not going in the ideal direction, for shorter-term I was = thinking about somewhat a mix of the two solutions you propose, to work = as a Charon: use a new reason code (or perhaps two, one for local = terminated session, one for remotely terminated session) since, as you = said in your follow-up email, it is the more conservative and would give = the most hope against what has been already coded. And make this/these = new reason code(s) carry "additional data [that] would be TLVized. It = would obviously need to have a registry created for it=E2=80=9D so not = to make all too =E2=80=9Cexpedient=E2=80=9D and revolving around the = specifics of VRF/Table Name and draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib.=20 Paolo From nobody Wed Jan 23 06:05:12 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5A33130ECA for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 06:05:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 DJSAiBmzDCQH for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 06:05:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail3.dllstx09.us.to.gin.ntt.net (mail3.dllstx09.us.to.gin.ntt.net [IPv6:2001:418:3ff:5::26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5F8D130E77 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 06:05:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail3.dllstx09.us.to.gin.ntt.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1gmJ9N-000DEs-DP (paolo@us.ntt.net); Wed, 23 Jan 2019 14:05:06 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Paolo Lucente In-Reply-To: <90D2CB67-C0B7-45BB-970A-528B117E4645@juniper.net> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 15:05:04 +0100 Cc: "grow@ietf.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <90D2CB67-C0B7-45BB-970A-528B117E4645@juniper.net> To: John Scudder X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [GROW] Separating the BMP Initiation and Peer Up namespaces X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 14:05:11 -0000 Hi John, [shared text] Ideally, i would like every BMP message type to have a = (optional) TLV section, each with a own namespace. If the idea is = shared, i=E2=80=99d look forward to see how to get there. Given the above, I do support this.=20 Paolo > On 15 Dec 2018, at 00:41, John Scudder wrote: >=20 > Hi All, >=20 > As I mentioned in the other thread, I think it was a mistake for Peer = Up and Initiation to share a namespace in RFC 7854. The fact that it's = difficult to get the text right in draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib = demonstrates this. >=20 > My suggestion is that we separate the namespaces. I've written and = submitted a short draft to do it, draft-scudder-grow-bmp-peer-up-00.txt = [1]. It seemed the most expedient way to describe the suggested = approach. If the WG likes the idea, we can adopt it, or if the WG wants = to fix it a different way, let's discuss. >=20 > An alternate solution would be to embrace the Information TLV as a = namespace that's shared between multiple messages (the implication in = draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib that the Information TLV could be included = in Peer Down suggests that's what the authors imagine would happen). I = don't prefer this because it requires enumeration of exceptions ("foo = Information type only applies when carried in such-and-such BMP message = type..."). Independent namespaces ends up being a little wordier but = less error-prone, IMO. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > --John >=20 > [1] https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-scudder-grow-bmp-peer-up-00.txt > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > GROW@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow