Subject: [bess] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-pta-flags-03: (with COMMENT)

From: "Suresh Krishnan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 15:33:01 -0700

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-pta-flags-03: No Objection

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-bess-pta-flags/

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

Section 2:

* Some of the MUST and MUST NOT requirements are stated on the message
itself without stating the sender side rules.

e.g. 

   The Additional PMSI Tunnel Attribute Flags Extended Community MUST
   NOT be carried by a given BGP UPDATE message unless the following
   conditions both hold:

It would be far more useful to state this as a sender rule

e.g. 

   The sender of a given BGP UPDATE message MUST NOT include an
Additional 
   PMSI Tunnel Attribute Flags Extended Community unless the following
   conditions both hold:

* The following text seems to be redundant as there is a receiver rule
that verifies exactly this. What exactly is the intent of this text and
who is expected to adhere to/enforce it?

   If a given BGP UPDATE message is carrying a PMSI Tunnel attribute,
   but is not carrying an Additional PMSI Tunnel Attribute Flags
   Extended Community, then the Extension flag in the PMSI Tunnel
   attribute MUST be clear.