Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-06

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:23:33 -0700

Dear authors:

Ping!

Alvaro.

On June 29, 2020 at 10:48:01 AM, Alvaro Retana ([email-masked])
wrote:

Dear authors:

Thank you for this document!

I only have a couple of comments (see below).  I think these should be easy
to address -- I'm starting the IETF Last Call.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

[Line numbers from idnits.]

...
80 1.  Introduction

82   It can be troublesome for an operator to correlate a BGP-4 [RFC4271]
83   session teardown in the network with a notice that was transmitted
84   via offline methods such email or telephone calls.  This document
85   updates [RFC4486] by specifying a mechanism to transmit a short
86   freeform UTF-8 [RFC3629] message as part of a Cease NOTIFICATION
87   message [RFC4271] to inform the peer why the BGP session is being
88   shutdown or reset.  This document obsoletes [RFC8203]; the specific
89   differences and rationale are discussed in detail in Appendix B.

[nit] s/such email/such as email

91 2.  Shutdown Communication
...
102    0                   1                   2                   3
103    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
104   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
105   | Error code 6  |    Subcode    |    Length     |     ...       \
106   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+               /
107   \                                                               \
108   /                 ... Shutdown Communication ...                /
109   \                                                               \
110   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

[nit] s/Error code/Error Code
Capitalized in rfc486...

...
168 5.  IANA Considerations

170   Per this document, IANA is requested to reference this document at
171   subcode "Administrative Shutdown", and at subcode "Administrative
172   Reset" in the "BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes" registry
173   under the "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" group in
174   addition to [RFC4486] and [RFC8203].

[nit] s/Per this document, /

[major] s/ and [RFC8203]./.
rfc8203 is being declared obsolete.

...
207 7.1.  Normative References
...
231   [RFC8203]  Snijders, J., Heitz, J., and J. Scudder, "BGP
232              Administrative Shutdown Communication", RFC 8203,
233              DOI 10.17487/RFC8203, July 2017,
234              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8203>.

[minor] This reference should be Informative.

...
271 Appendix B.  Changes to RFC 8203
...
275   Feedback from operators based in regions which predominantly use
276   multibyte character sets, showed that messages similar in meaning to
277   what can be send in other languages in using single-byte encoding,
278   failed to fit within the Length constraints as specified by
279   [RFC8203].  For example, the phrase: 'Planned work to add switch to
280   stack.  Completion time - 30 minutes' has length 65 bytes.  Its
281   translation in Russian
282   '&#1055;&#1083;&#1072;&#1085;&#1086;&#1074;&#1099;&#1077;
283   &#1088;&#1072;&#1073;&#1086;&#1090;&#1099; &#1087;&#1086; &#1076;&#10
284   86;&#1073;&#1072;&#1074;&#1083;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1102; &#1082;&#
285   1086;&#1084;&#1084;&#1091;&#1090;&#1072;&#1090;&#1086;&#1088;&#1072;&
286   #1074;
287   &#1089;&#1090;&#1077;&#1082;.&#1042;&#1088;&#1077;&#1084;&#1103; &#10
288   79;&#1072;&#1074;&#1077;&#1088;&#1096;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; -
289   30&#1084;&#1080;&#1085;&#1091;&#1090;' (See PDF for non-ASCII
290   character string) has length 139 bytes.

[major] I looked at all the other versions and none of them rendered
Cyrillic script.  I have no idea how to fix that, maybe ask the
rfc-editor.  I also don't know if there's something special about the new
v3 format that would make this easier...  I'll rely on the authors/Shepherd
to solve this before approval.