Hi Matt,
On 22/09/2017 07:08, Matt Griswold wrote:
> * Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> [170921 14:19 +1200]:
>> On 21/09/2017 12:13, Matt Griswold wrote:
>>> * Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> [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?
Your suggestion below "Adding a brief scenario paragraph should work,
I'll write something up." would do it, I think. (I should add that my
perspective is that of someone who understands in theory how BGP is supposed
to work but has never personally practiced it - I'm not suggesting you
need to cover everything, just supply a few clues.)
>
>>>> 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?
Yes.
>
>>>> 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.
Great.
Brian
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
