Subject: [GROW] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 23:21:22 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-06: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Two small points that will be trivial to address:

— Section 4 —

   The existing flags are defined in section 4.2 [RFC7854] and the
   remaining bits are reserved for future use.  They SHOULD be
   transmitted as 0 and their values MUST be ignored on receipt.

Why “SHOULD”?  That’s inconsistent with Section 4.2 of 7854, which says “MUST”.
 Failing to set the reserved bits to 0 will cause interoperability problems
with future extensions.

   The following fields in the Per-Peer Header are redefined:

You aren’t redefining them completely, right?  Don’t you mean, “When the O flag
is set to 1, the following fields in the Per-Peer Header are redefined:” ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Some editorial comments:

Throughout: there are five instances of “use-case”.  “Use case” should not be
hyphenated (unless it’s used as a modifier, which it isn’t here).

— Section 1 —

   An example of pre-policy verses post-policy is

You mean “versus”, with a “u” (and also a second time later in the section).

   This document updates section
   4.2 [RFC7854] per-peer header by adding a new flag

That’s an odd way to do the citation.  Also, “per-peer header” is misplaced:

NEW
This document updates the per-peer header in section 4.2 of [RFC7854] by adding
a new flag END

The other places in the document that say “section 4.2 [RFC7854]” should also
be changed to “section 4.2 of [RFC7854]”.

— Section 6.3.1 —

      The Information field contains a free-form
      UTF-8 string whose length is given by the Information Length
      field.

As one UTF-8 character can be more than one byte, it’s best to specify whether
the length is in bytes or characters.  I would say, “whose byte length is
given....” (also in Section 9.3)

— Section 9.3 —
The sentence, “The value is administratively given by the Information Length
field.” appears to be a copy/paste error, and should be deleted.

---

From: Paolo Lucente <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 16:19:20 +0000

Hi Barry,

Thanks for your comments. I hope it is felt that the following edits address them:

https://github.com/paololucente/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out/commit/f3a9cb578d6f1a93c207f328f4f912c52cda6bcd

Paolo

On 10 Jul 2019, at 08:21, Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

— Section 4 —

Some editorial comments:

— Section 1 —

NEW

— Section 6.3.1 —

— Section 9.3 —

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 12:46:10 -0400

Thanks, Paolo: the updates take care of the DISCUSS and all but one of
the editorial comments.  It's a little hard to tell from the github
PR, but it looks like the extra text in Section 9.3 is still there
(after the addition of "byte"):

<<
The Information field contains a free-form UTF-8 string whose byte
length is given by the Information Length field. The value is
administratively given by the Information Length field. The value
is administratively assigned. There is no requirement to terminate
the string with null or any other character.

The second sentence appears to be a paste error and shouldn't be there... yes?

Thanks for addressing my comments!

Barry

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 12:19 PM Paolo Lucente <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On 10 Jul 2019, at 08:21, Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: "Tim Evens (tievens)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 19:54:55 +0000

Hi Barry,

Thanks for catching that.  PR https://github.com/TimEvens/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out/pull/14 should correct this.  The rendered txt is https://github.com/TimEvens/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out/blob/iana_admin_label/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out.txt

Thanks,
Tim

On 7/16/19, 9:46 AM, "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    <<

    
    Barry

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 15:27:49 -0400

Thanks!
DISCUSS cleared in anticipation of the github version being posted.  I
appreciate you folks addressing my comments.

Barry