* Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> [170921 14:19 +1200]: > On 21/09/2017 12:13, Matt Griswold wrote: > > * Brian Carpenter <[email protected]> [170918 21:44 > > -0700]: > >> Minor Issues: > >> ------------- > >> > >>> 3.1.1. Maintenance Considerations > >>> > >>> Initiators of the administrative shutdown could consider using > >>> Graceful Shutdown [I-D.ietf-grow-bgp-gshut] to facilitate smooth > >>> drainage of traffic prior to session tear down, and the Shutdown > >>> Communication [I-D.ietf-idr-shutdown]... > >> > >> This strikes me as vague. "Could consider"? Surely if this is > >> a BCP, they MUST use some mechanisms and perhaps SHOULD use these > >> particular mechanisms. Otherwise the document doesn't specify > >> anything much at all for this case. > > > > Graceful Shutdown is just one of multiple ways an Operator can > > accomplish that. > > Understood, so perhaps it's a MAY not a SHOULD
You're right, I will update it to MAY. > but the text still really only seems to say "do the right thing" > without saying what that is. To be honest the whole document is a bit > like that - written for members of the club who know how to run BGP, > rather than for a newcomer who wants to know how to run BGP. That's really by design, the document is for people who know and run BGP, I think putting too much basic BGP knowledge would make it monotonous. Any ideas on how to meet in the middle? > >> Secondly, if there are no fault indications, what causes the > >> Caretaker to cull sessions? What's the trigger? Is the Caretaker > >> supposed to know by magic that layer 2 maintenance is planned? > > > > The Caretaker controls the layer 2 network, so yes, would do this as > > part of the maintenance process. > > Again: not clear to a newcomer. The updated language is: Throughout this document the "Caretaker" is defined to be in control of the lower layer network, while "Operators" directly administrate the BGP speakers. I think that clears it up? > >> And in Appendix A, explain precisely how the example prefixes are > >> used: what makes them relevant? Are they normally announced by BGP > >> to all the IXP's BGP peers? > > > > They are the IXP LAN addresses, as explained above the examples. > > Yes, I realise that, but again you're assuming that the reader has > a complete picture in her mind. Maybe there's actually a need for > a scenario description in the Introduction, or at least a reminder > that in normal operation, paths through the fabric in question may be > known throughout the BGP realm, and the objective is to delete > those paths before starting maintenance. Again, that section is for IXP Caretakers so I don't think we need to go into IXP operational details too much. Adding a brief scenario paragraph should work, I'll write something up. Thanks _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
