Hi Camilo, Looks like a plan for now. Thanks.
Cheers, Med De : Camilo Cardona <cam...@gin.ntt.net> Envoyé : vendredi 7 février 2025 17:54 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>; draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-...@ietf.org Cc : grow@ietf.org Objet : Re: Review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv-02 Med, Thanks for your comments. As I mentioned, the TLV's objective is not to validate markings or marking combinations, it is just the transport to signal them to monitoring systems. The markings you see there were included in combinations of operators that explicitly stated they needed them for their purposes, and it was good to have examples for implementations prototypes. We could, together with the group, decide to remove them, but then the practical use of the document will decrease. Whether backup and non-selected are ambiguous, that's perfectly fine. Some implementations might be able to mark backup, others not, that's why both have to remain there. What implementations can or cannot do in BGP is tricky, and we want the TLV to be flexible about it. To not start going in circles, I can propose that we modify the text, probably in the implementation section, to be clear about the above. We can continue discussing after that. Are there any other concrete proposals you would like us to evaluate? Thanks, Camilo C From: <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>> Date: Friday, 7 February 2025 at 03:36 To: Camilo Cardona <cam...@gin.ntt.net<mailto:cam...@gin.ntt.net>>, "draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-...@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-...@ietf.org>> Cc: "grow@ietf.org<mailto:grow@ietf.org>" <grow@ietf.org<mailto:grow@ietf.org>> Subject: RE: Review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv-02 Resent from: <alias-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:alias-boun...@ietf.org>> Resent to: <cam...@ntt.net<mailto:cam...@ntt.net>>, <guyu...@huawei.com<mailto:guyu...@huawei.com>>, <pa...@ntt.net<mailto:pa...@ntt.net>>, <pierre.franc...@insa-lyon.fr<mailto:pierre.franc...@insa-lyon.fr>>, <thomas.g...@swisscom.com<mailto:thomas.g...@swisscom.com>> Resent date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 00:35:45 -0800 (PST) Hi Camilo, Please see inline. Cheers, Med De : Camilo Cardona <cam...@gin.ntt.net<mailto:cam...@gin.ntt.net>> Envoyé : mercredi 5 février 2025 18:01 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>>; draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-...@ietf.org> Cc : grow@ietf.org<mailto:grow@ietf.org> Objet : Re: Review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv-02 Hello Med, Please see inline, Thanks, Camilo From: <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>> Date: Wednesday, 5 February 2025 at 10:15 To: Camilo Cardona <cam...@gin.ntt.net<mailto:cam...@gin.ntt.net>>, "draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-...@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-...@ietf.org>> Cc: "grow@ietf.org<mailto:grow@ietf.org>" <grow@ietf.org<mailto:grow@ietf.org>> Subject: RE: Review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv-02 Re-, Please see inline. Cheers, Med De : Camilo Cardona <cam...@gin.ntt.net<mailto:cam...@gin.ntt.net>> Envoyé : mercredi 5 février 2025 15:30 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>>; draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-...@ietf.org> Cc : grow@ietf.org<mailto:grow@ietf.org> Objet : Re: Review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv-02 Hello Med, Thanks for the review. We have had indeed contradictory comments, which have let us include a lot of what you are proposing to remove from the draft. Having said that, many of your edits are to the point and we will change them in the next version. We'll make them, and we'll probably iterate over them. Thanks a lot. [Med] Thanks As you can see, this draft depends on the TLV and TLV e-bit draft, and content was flowing among them. After modifying them constantly, we had decided to let the path marking be stable until the other 2 are more advanced in the standardization process and then trim all that is left behind in the others. That's why you didn't see the g-bit there yet, and also why we left the enterprise part. I guess we can revisit that now, if you consider that the other will not change drastically at their stage. [Med] What would be really great is to have the base TLV (ideally with e-bit merged in) and the other TLVs (including status TLV) progress as a cluster in the publication process. [Camilo] Thanks, that's fine, but, at least we will need if the TLV and ebit drafts will be merged to know what to reference, no? [Med] I don't think we need that discussion to happen to remove the enterprise TLV from the marking draft. I suggest you align as much with the base TLV. Thanks. A couple of questions; What do you mean by removing the bitmask, you mean removing the bit definitions from the draft? [Med] No, I was referring to the use of plain values. I understand that the current encoding choice is because you allow multiple bits to be set (and thus the use of 4 octets). However, it is not clear there are much combinations that are worth to be reported. [Camilo] Indeed, you can have combinations of markings, and no, we do not forbid combinations of them. That was deliberated. It is true that there might be combinations that make no sense, this might depend on implementation, source RIB, etc. Trying to analyze that is out of the scope of the draft which aims at providing the mechanism to transmit the information, more than being the policy of which values can be combined. Notice that we evaluated to not include example of markings or reasons in the draft, but after discussion we agreed that we the most basic examples of reason codes and markings in the draft to make it practical for implementations. I still do not understand what you mean by removing the bitmask? What would be the alternative? We cannot have a single value because you can have multiple markings. Bitmask are simpler than lists of values, and states should be more limited in number (different from reason). Also, with lists you would still have invalid combinations. We added 4 octets and not 2, because we got feedback that 2 would be short. [Med] I hear that. The design you have is definitely flexible and accommodate any combination of bits setting. The concern with that is that we are making the validation complex. Note that setting multiple bits for some cases is redundant (e.g., set backup/Non-selected bits for a backup route is useless as the definition of backup assumes that!): CURRENT: Back-up routes are considered non-selected It would be helpful to see what are the likely combinations that you think are encountered. Also, what do you mean by bit offset in the review document? [Med] this is to indicate the position of the bit in the bitmask Thanks a lot, Camilo From: <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>> Date: Wednesday, 5 February 2025 at 05:47 To: "draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-...@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-...@ietf.org>> Cc: "grow@ietf.org<mailto:grow@ietf.org>" <grow@ietf.org<mailto:grow@ietf.org>> Subject: Review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv-02 Resent from: <alias-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:alias-boun...@ietf.org>> Resent to: <cam...@ntt.net<mailto:cam...@ntt.net>>, <guyu...@huawei.com<mailto:guyu...@huawei.com>>, <pa...@ntt.net<mailto:pa...@ntt.net>>, <pierre.franc...@insa-lyon.fr<mailto:pierre.franc...@insa-lyon.fr>>, <thomas.g...@swisscom.com<mailto:thomas.g...@swisscom.com>> Resent date: Wed, 5 Feb 2025 02:47:41 -0800 (PST) Hi Camilo, Paolo, Pierre, Yunan, and Thomas, FWIW, please find a review of this document at: * pdf: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/2025/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv-02-rev%20Med.pdf * doc: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/raw/refs/heads/master/2025/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv-02-rev%20Med.doc Overall, I think that the spec can be simplified. I don't see the need to have the enterprise TLV included here. There are some few issues with encoding and, again, there is a room to simplify (e.g., avoid the bitmask). I wouldn't be surprised if you received contradictory comments as the doc is out there since 2019 :-) Aah, do you really need to have a normative dependency on a spec that was expired since 2012? I would avoid that by having these parts self-contained. Also, please update the terminology to be aligned with RFC 4271. Thank you. Cheers, Med ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 To unsubscribe send an email to grow-le...@ietf.org
