Hi Sue,

We should remove it from the base document. The intent was that anything
that goes to the control plane should be rate-limited to prevent a DOS
attack. We had talked internally that the specification of a rate-limiter
was out of scope of this document, but keeping this in the doc would ensure
that implementors assigned a (fixed value initially?) rate-limiter of some
sorts.

We can remove that from the grammar and just add/keep relevant text to make
the intentions more clear.

Thanks
nitin

From:  Susan Hares <[email protected]>
Date:  Sunday, April 20, 2014 at 3:00 PM
To:  <[email protected]>
Cc:  'Jeffrey Haas' <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, 'Alia Atlas'
<[email protected]>
Subject:  Re: [i2rs] draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-02

> Nitin, Ron, Kini and Jan:
>  
> I forgot to ask question on the grammar:
>  
> <special-nexthop> :: = <DISCARD> | <DISCARD_WITH_ERROR> | (<RECEIVE>
> [COS_VALUE] [<rate-limiter>])
>  
> Rater limited is not defined.  Is there a reason why this would be in a
> standard document without a definition?  Did I miss something on the list?
>  
> Sue 
>  
> 
> From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
> Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2014 5:31 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: 'Jeffrey Haas'; [email protected]; Alia Atlas
> Subject: [i2rs] draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-02
>  
> Nitin, Ron, Kini, Jan:
>  
> 1)      Is Section 7 of your document normative or informative?
> 
>  
> 
> 2)      Your grammar seems wordy/inconsistent in the repetition of the next
> hop below 
> 
>  
> Your RIB grammar on page 17 states:
> 
>  
> <nexthop-list> ::= <special-nexthop> |
>                                 ((nexthop-list-member>) |
>                                  (<nexthop-list-member> Š | <nexthop-list>))
>  
> <nexthop-list-member> ::= (<nexthop-chain> |
>                                                    <nexthop-chain-identifier>)
>                  
> [<nexthop-list-member-attributes>]
>  
> <nexthop-chain>::= (<nexthop> Š)
>  
> Questions: Why do you have nexthop-list-member listed twice?  Why list
> <nexthop-list> twice? Is this readability or technical matter?
>  
> Why not: 
> <nexthop-list>::= ((<special-nexthop> | (nexthop-list-member) Š ) Š
>  
> Why not: 
> <nexthop-list-member> ::= (((<nexthop-chain-identifier> | (<nexthops> Š
> ))[<nexthop-list-member-attributes]) )Š
>  
> Were you trying to name the chains?
>  
> 3)      Two variables seem orphaned:
> 
>  
> 
> Multicast-source-ipv4-address ::= <IPv4_ADDRESS> <IPV4_PREFIX_LENGTH>
> 
> Multicast-source-ipv6-address ::= <IPv6_ADDRESS> <IPv6_PREFIX_LENGTH>
> 
>  
>          Did I miss someplace where they attached to the normative section 6.
>            You indicated the PIM paths can be chains (section 7.3), but you do
> not give the normative section.
>  
> Sue Hares 
>  
> _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list
> [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs


_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

Reply via email to