Hi Susan, Thanks for your time reviewing this document and you below comments.
Please see my replies inline [Bruno] Note that however fast I'm answering to your review, that document is now in RFC editor queue, and hence technical changes are much more difficult. (AFAIK, would require specific approval from the responsible AD). Thanks for taking this into account. > -----Original Message----- > From: Susan Hares [mailto:sha...@ndzh.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 9:46 AM > To: ops-...@ietf.org > Cc: grow@ietf.org; draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut....@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org > Subject: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-gshut-13 > > Reviewer: Susan Hares > Review result: Has Nits > > Status: Nits > > The operational procedures described in this process for the gshut comment > are > accurately covered, and SHOULD work well. The Appendices A-C add to an > operations document and should be retained for publication. [Bruno] ok, thanks. > Technical nit: > location of technical nit: (section 4.3) > The document indicats that the "BGP implementers SHOULD provide configuration > knobs that utilize teh GRACEFUL_SHUTDOWN community." > > What the problem is: > The document does not say is that their should be error reporting knobs to > track the use of GRACEFUL_SHUTDOWN community. This can go in section 4.3 in > one or two sentences. [Bruno] Could you please elaborate on this? What do you have in mind by "error reporting knobs"? Thinking about this, what I could think of would be logs detailing the steps in section 4.2. Possibly raising alarms when something seems wrong. (e.g. after waiting for BGP convergence, there is still some traffic sent/received over the interface(s) related to the EBGP session) Is this what you were thinking about? > Editorial nit: > section 3. paragraph 2, p. 3 > > /This is because alternate paths can be hidden by knodes of an AS./ > commment: The implied "this" is too vague for a specification. > > Fix:/This lack of path occurs because alternate paths can be hidden by nodes > of > an AS."/ [Bruno] I agree that your proposed text makes it more explicit, which is always better in a specification (when it's not redundant). However, I would note 2 points: - section 3 is part of the introduction to the problem space. It explains the root cause of the problem. It's not part of the graceful shutdown specification. - The text you are referring to is a paragraph starting with: "First, some routers can have no path toward an affected prefix, and drop traffic destined to this prefix. This is because alternate paths can be hidden by nodes of an AS." Hence "This" refers to the short sentence which is immediately before. I don't feel that there is much ambiguity. That being said, as you classify your comment as an editorial nit, I could propose to forward it to the RFC editor, and let the RFC editor propose a resolution. Would this be ok for you? Thanks, Best regards, --Bruno _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
