Subject: Re: [Idr] Idr Digest, Vol 158, Issue 55

From: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 02:43:18 +0000

>
>We would like to try to start a discussion before committing actual changes
>to the draft. I've tried to aggregate questions that were raised during WG
>adoption call, hope this will be helpful.
>
>
>It was mentioned that while mandatory status of roles is effective way to
>speed up deployment process, it may also bring problems with backward
>compatibility. Imagine that after software update you will get errors for
>your configuration file, that was working fine. For me it seems like a
>design problem that should be solved. Our current plan is to make next
>changes in the draft:

David and Job have raised some important design discussion points
that are not captured (IMO) in your summary:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg18223.html 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg18222.html 

I feel it would be good to reply directly to their posts and address each of their questions/concerns.

Sriram

Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 00:48:50 +0300
From: Alexander Azimov <[email-masked]>
To: idr wg <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy -- discussion
Message-ID:
        <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear IDR members!

We would like to try to start a discussion before committing actual changes
to the draft. I've tried to aggregate questions that were raised during WG
adoption call, hope this will be helpful.

It was mentioned that while mandatory status of roles is effective way to
speed up deployment process, it may also bring problems with backward
compatibility. Imagine that after software update you will get errors for
your configuration file, that was working fine. For me it seems like a
design problem that should be solved. Our current plan is to make next
changes in the draft:

   1. Remove mandatory status of roles: so, roles SHOULD be set on each BGP
   session instead of MUST. We are also going to make reference to bgp-reject
   draft, so that there will be no route exchange if there is no import/export
   policy or roles;
   2. Remove complex roles. For those who is still looking for more
   flexibility, absence of roles will provide a walk around;
   3. Clarify that iOTC MUST NOT be transmitted through
   *Customer/Provider/Pee*r sessions or unmarked eBGP sessions.

There are also few minor questions such as:

   1. We have two situations when Notification is sent: when there is
   conflict pair of roles and when strict mode is set by one side and other
   side has no roles. Should we use two different subcodes or one is enough?
   2. Proper naming of attribute: iOTC vs iOtC.

We are looking forward your comments and feedback. I'm planning to push
these changes during weekend.

PS: We would like to ask IDR chairs to give us a slot during meeting at
Prague.
------------------------------

---

From: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 12:52:35 +0000

Resending with the correct subject line... sorry about the earlier oversight.

Sriram

Sriram

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2017 22:01:01 +0200

> each of their questions/concerns.

thanks for voluntgeering