IESG Alissa Cooper: traffic-rate-bytes vs traffic-rate-packets

[stoffi92]

Alissa Cooper:

Apologies as this may be a really silly question, but isn't it possible for traffic-rate-bytes and traffic-rate-packets to interfere with each other? That is, if by mistake a flow specification shows up containing both actions and they contradict each other (e.g., 0 bytes but 1M packets), how is that situation supposed to be handled?

[stoffi92]

Discussed in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/wGDrB6tT6m7OsDGRzvKRvxQ-0X4/

Suggested fix by Susan Hares + Alissa's and Alvaro's OK:

Alissa and Alvaro:

Alissa discuss is correct.

My solution to fix this is to provide the following revisions:

Section 7.1: 
Old/
  Interferes with: No other BGP Flow Specification Traffic Filtering
  Action in this document.
/
 New/
  Interferes with:  May interfere with the traffic-rate-packets (see section 7.2).
  Policy may allow both filtering by traffic-rate-packets and traffic-rate-bytes. 
  If policy does not allow this, these two actions will conflict.  
/  
Section 7.2 
Old/
  Interferes with: No other BGP Flow Specification Traffic Filtering
  Action in this document.
/
  Interferes with: May interfere with the  traffic-rate-bytes (see section  7.1) 
  Policy may allow both filtering by traffic-rate-packets and traffic-rate-bytes. 
  If policy does not allow this, these two actions will conflict.      
/

If this fix is acceptable to both of you, please let me know. We will re-spin the draft.

Sue Hares