Hi Jeff, 

Thanks a lot for your comments and recommendation, which will be reflected in 
next revision of this document. 

Best regards,
Jie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jh...@pfrc.org]
> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2018 11:51 PM
> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.d...@huawei.com>; opsawg@ietf.org
> Cc: i...@ietf.org; idr-cha...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Idr] FW: WG LC for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community
> 
> Authors,
> 
> Thanks for accommodating my prior comments on this draft.
> 
> I have one final issue to raise with the draft.  The information elements for
> extended community and large community by nature of their size are of type
> octetArray.  The draft correctly notes the expected size of each of these
> elements; 8 and 12 respectively.
> 
> The draft provides no guidance for when each of these elements is NOT of the
> expected size.
> 
> My recommendation is a small paragraph to the Operational Considerations
> section:
> "In the event that the bgpExtendedCommunity or bgpLargeCommunity
> Elements are not of their expected sizes (8 and 12 octets, respectively), the
> receiver SHOULD ignore them."
> 
> I'm not savvy with the general language wrapped around receiver procedure
> for IPFIX these days, so a bit of additional verbiage might be expected for
> appropriate draft boilerplate.  However, this is intended to protect
> implementations using BGP logic from calling their parsing routines with 
> invalid
> lengths.
> 
> -- Jeff
> 
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 08:26:52AM +0000, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Currently this BGP related draft is in WG LC in OPSAWG, their chairs suggest
> IDR to take a look at it, please send comments (if any) to OPSAWG mailing 
> list.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Jie
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tianran Zhou
> > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 11:31 AM
> > To: 'idr-cha...@ietf.org'
> > Cc: 'opsawg-cha...@ietf.org'
> > Subject: FW: WG LC for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community
> >
> > Dear IDR Chairs,
> >
> > The OPSAWG started a 2 week WG LC for the following draft:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-04
> >
> > We got many comments and suggestions from IDR when this work is adopted.
> Now the authors believe the document is ready.
> > We really appreciate more comments from this working group.
> >
> > Could you please help to forward this information to the IDR mailing list?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tianran, as OPSAWG co-chair
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tianran
> > Zhou
> > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 11:07 AM
> > To: opsawg@ietf.org
> > Cc: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org
> > Subject: [OPSAWG] WG LC for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community
> >
> > Hi WG,
> >
> > The authors of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community have posted the latest
> drafts to the mailing list, and believe that the document is ready for LC.
> >
> > This starts a 2 week WG LC on
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-04
> >
> > Please read the above draft and send any issues, comments, or corrections to
> this mailing list.
> > All supports and concerns are welcome and helpful for the authors.
> >
> > We are also looking for a document shepherd, best with operator background,
> to help the following procedures.
> >
> > The WG LC will close on Feb 1, 2018.
> > Authors please indicate whether you are aware of any IPR for the draft.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tianran, as OPSAWG co-chair
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OPSAWG mailing list
> > OPSAWG@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Idr mailing list
> > i...@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Reply via email to