Dear Jakob, Enke
Enke raised an interesting point.
I've received no feedback from anyone that 128 isn't sufficient. This work was circulated at NANOG, APRICOT, GPF and UKNOF to get feedback. Due to lack of demand for anything bigger it doesn't seem worth it to go back and change the existing implementations.
The implementation complexity is very low already. You can review Peter van Dijk's implemention report to get a sense of how things are done. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/8ueDFbC4ZBd1WwolRS78aFA8oyw
Kind regards,
Job
On Mon, 8 May at 21:13, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It is deliberately kept short to minimize the potential for abuse.
We could have argued about the length. Should it be 100, 120, 127,
but it's not an argument worth wasting time on.
Not using the whole range of the length byte opens the door to using
the rest of the range to indicate a future new information field.
Thanks,
Jakob.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Enke Chen (enkechen)
> Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2017 8:44 PM
> To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Cc: draft-ietf-idr-shutdown@xxxxxxxx; idr@xxxxxxxx; idr-chairs@xxxxxxxx; Enke Chen (enkechen) <enkechen@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Idr] Last Call: <draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-08.txt> (BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication) to
> Proposed Standard
>
> Hi, Folks:
>
> Just spotted this (apologies for not catching it earlier):
>
> The draft specifies only 0 - 128 as valid in the one-octet length field.
> Not sure if there is a strong reason for such an apparent over-specification.
>
> It seems to me that the spec can and should be simplified by removing the
> restriction, that is, to allow any value (0 - 255) to be valid. That would
> also eliminate one error condition for the implementation.
>
> Thanks. -- Enke
>
> ---
> 2. Shutdown Communication
>
> Length: this 8-bit field represents the length of the Shutdown
> Communication field in octets. The length value MUST range from 0
> to 128 inclusive.
>
> 4. Error Handling
>
> If a Shutdown Communication with an invalid Length value,
> ----
>
> On 5/5/17 10:54 AM, The IESG wrote:
> >
> > The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to
> > consider the following document:
> > - 'BGP Administrative Shutdown Communication'
> > <draft-ietf-idr-shutdown-08.txt> as Proposed Standard
> >
> > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2017-05-19. Exceptionally, comments may be
> > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the
> > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> >
> > Abstract
> >
> >
> > This document enhances the BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message
> > "Administrative Shutdown" and "Administrative Reset" subcodes for
> > operators to transmit a short freeform message to describe why a BGP
> > session was shutdown or reset. This document updates RFC 4486.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The file can be obtained via
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-shutdown/
> >
> > IESG discussion can be tracked via
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-shutdown/ballot/
> >
> >
> > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Idr mailing list
> > Idr@xxxxxxxx
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
> >