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>; email@example.com > 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: firstname.lastname@example.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