Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext-07

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Mon, 23 November 2020 20:15 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1EFF3A0A20; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 12:15:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b4D7gvhHOYvz; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 12:15:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x529.google.com (mail-pg1-x529.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::529]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2B523A0AA1; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 12:14:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x529.google.com with SMTP id t3so1444523pgi.11; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 12:14:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zmhqpiT13Cl4AqrDhrlkjbNB9Wz2QUCjLz0sNg2NQ7E=; b=Oq6D12pSfqMrm8ycAspV+LH/HgSazruaPSG9m6j9eWTz/tyV6kEPMZ6lol/9FNIChC fT6y86eu5yqoZHLrjgF8M/vL2w269ovYT+sDKC88ufGevSlKBHqRJOhyLmRg/c70OZtc bK/d1yl2hJikiONm4sclI6Z3EiFwg5c3/ytwKEIKn5eRYwN4SYcMrACzmIftKSSZNDQh Hl6PZHFE05RDRN+cXXKrqUtsFMS1v0qQm0mEdvHPDwEy8U70uqeIB22FxCEqB17Sb4eG GDymqeZB5XLpRAng6iDj5MLYSG8j5BBKSxQ6E+CFc/K/dWbygivM8Hm82JsGc0aR8D+X vRUQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zmhqpiT13Cl4AqrDhrlkjbNB9Wz2QUCjLz0sNg2NQ7E=; b=uN2J0k0yC9cFJhMsr7jqfRYa+w/oP7kCQt67zY9i4xb8oNBW4jhaVhiy7xmH7ZIHkt 506iIIkMSDZgK5RWJ+zuXRlQQBF2g7XOyR74aHqUaihVR1b/HIh83E7F9M0DXCc2L88i 7weZNj2+RWhPS+ejPfLQvtb4zUzPnd+RszK0shez9IDF0mwiExf3OrCe2KafihYrwc9V ThqSZidLd6NOsjuCS+d3kqg6Kw/KOUS8S77Pm4f5Xmno0lpGg/RqjaSOpyoAFSji8qIt aWHj1htFSWJEyRSva1fEagD5MUCtbuSYpqt/2dO/uQQnMyG0+9wzh7zZTaVHpslgG+Nz HJxw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531s2gsLdJskfM8xyLAJxwjRBzC+xEd0t4B5+vgspBZ8enjUBHzA eJiVIgp+y09o6ysLcy+gHaL4QI1GcAq0BOgbFt0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyZqoJYA0huMBqUsposLjUMu6pqlTFL9PdB7uLxue4TjC7FLCf22R2rA/NPwPz+claaXDaHwNaoIwEIriw34vk=
X-Received: by 2002:a65:56c8:: with SMTP id w8mr927743pgs.383.1606162482335; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 12:14:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABNhwV0Lj3iZyD=bux6dyZeZk6Y-y31Oa0PdXUpYFOLo=ZM7Xw@mail.gmail.com> <202011231744258912495@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <202011231744258912495@zte.com.cn>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 15:14:31 -0500
Message-ID: <CABNhwV3saHnSoP42Cf28QwXwSUtZ_Y2Pec+EGk-4JTHEMs17mA@mail.gmail.com>
To: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
Cc: bier@ietf.org, bier-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003613c805b4cbd866"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/3SM8oxHnKvC2_0RlsRtYPNpgQFY>
Subject: Re: [Bier] =?utf-8?q?Shepherd=E2=80=99s_review_of_draft-ietf-bier-bg?= =?utf-8?q?p-ls-bier-ext-07?=
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"Bit Indexed Explicit Replication discussion list\"" <bier.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bier/>
List-Post: <mailto:bier@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 20:15:13 -0000

Hi Ran

The rev 9 looks good.  I will update the Shepherd write-up.

Thank you

Gyan

On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:44 AM <chen.ran@zte.com.cn> wrote:

> Hi Gyan,
>
> We have updated the draft based on your comments, the link is :
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext-09>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext-09.
>
> The main update contents are as follows:
>
>    1.
>
>    remove RFC 6952 & 3631 &4272.
>    2.
>
>    remove RFC 4271 to informative references
>    3.
>
>    add  RFC 5440 & 5376 to informative references  and add 4655 to
>    normative references.
>    4.
>
>    we have just  requested  BIER-related BGP LS IANA codepoints,If there
>    is further information synced to you.
>    5.
>
>
>    <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions/>
>    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions/ is
>    the basic draft and is very important to our draft,so we would like to keep
>    this part of the content. We will try to contact the author of the
>    draft-ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions
>    <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions/> to
>    update.
>
>
>
> Best Regards.
>
> Ran
>
>
> 原始邮件
> *发件人:*GyanMishra
> *收件人:*陈然00080434;
> *抄送人:*bier@ietf.org;bier-chairs@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext@ietf.org;
> *日 期 :*2020年11月05日 02:25
> *主 题 :**Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of
> draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext-07*
> Thank you
>
> Gyan
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:41 AM <chen.ran@zte.com.cn> wrote:
>
>> Hi Gyan,
>>
>> Thank you very mch. Beacuse the submission of Internet draft has been
>> closed and will be updated and submitted after opening.
>>
>>
>> Best Regards.
>>
>> Ran
>>
>>
>>
>> 原始邮件
>> *发件人:*GyanMishra
>> *收件人:*陈然00080434;
>> *抄送人:*BIER WG;BIER WG Chairs;draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext@ietf.org;
>> *日 期 :*2020年11月04日 05:33
>> *主 题 :**Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of
>> draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext-07*
>>
>> Remove RFC 4272 as a reference as well.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Gyan
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 4:24 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Authors,
>>> I have completed the Shepherd write-up.  The document is ready for
>>> publication with some nits below.  Once cleaned up I believe we will be
>>> ready for publication.
>>>
>>> Attached is the idnits output. Please correct and update the draft and
>>> then I will update the Shephard write-up to reflect update.
>>>
>>> Have the 3 BGP LS IANA codepoints been requested?   I don't see them
>>> listed yet on the IANA BGP-LS link below. Let me know once requested and
>>> the IANA page has been updated and I will update the Shepherd writeup.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml
>>>
>>> This draft under normative references is expired and noted in the
>>> Shepherd writuep.  Please find the status of the reference and if necessary
>>> please get it back on track or remove.
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-lsr-ethernet-extensions/
>>>
>>> I believe RFC 4271 & 4272 should be made informative references as they
>>> are not normative to understand the draft.  Also remove RFC 6952 & 3631
>>> completely unrelated to this draft.
>>>
>>> I would reference as normative RFC 8571 as that pertains to BGP-LS
>>> original Day 1 original use case for RSVP TE link attribute
>>> TE path computation as to why BGP-LS came into existence - as now BIER
>>> use case would fall into new categorical use case for BGP-LS now being used
>>> to gather BIER IGP extension information via BGP-LS to northbound to
>>> PCE/Controller.
>>>
>>> I think PCE arch should be referenced as PCE is noted in the
>>> introduction as the PCE or any centralized controller for BIER
>>> provisioning.
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/pce/documents/
>>>
>>> I would add PECE WG RFCs RFC 4655 PCE architecture as normative and that
>>> should be enough and reference in the draft where PCE is mentioned.  Then I
>>> would add as informative RFC 5440 & 5376.
>>>
>>> Thank you
>>>
>>> Gyan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 12:50 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Ran
>>>>
>>>> I reviewed the update and it looks perfect.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you
>>>>
>>>> Gyan
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 1:59 AM <chen.ran@zte.com.cn> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Gyan, Chairs and WG,
>>>>>
>>>>> We have updated the draft based on the Gyran's comments.The link is
>>>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext/>
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext/. Please
>>>>> check it and see if it is OK.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any comments are welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Regards.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ran
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 原始邮件
>>>>> *发件人:*陈然00080434
>>>>> *收件人:*hayabusagsm@gmail.com;
>>>>> *抄送人:*bier@ietf.org;draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext@ietf.org;
>>>>> bier-chairs@ietf.org;
>>>>> *日 期 :*2020年10月21日 16:52
>>>>> *主 题 :**Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of
>>>>> draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext-07*
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> BIER mailing list
>>>>> BIER@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Gyan,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you very much for your valuable comments, we will update it as
>>>>> soon as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ran
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *发件人:*张征00007940
>>>>> *收件人:*hayabusagsm@gmail.com;陈然00080434;
>>>>> *抄送人:*bier@ietf.org;draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext@ietf.org;
>>>>> bier-chairs@ietf.org;
>>>>> *日 期 :*2020年10月21日 10:02
>>>>> *主 题 :**Re: [Bier] Shepherd’s review of
>>>>> draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext-07*
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> BIER mailing list
>>>>> BIER@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Gyan,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ran will consider your suggestion and make some changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your suggestion!
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sandy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *发件人:*GyanMishra
>>>>> *收件人:*张征00007940;
>>>>> *抄送人:*bier@ietf.org;bier-chairs@ietf.org;
>>>>> draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext@ietf.org;
>>>>> *日 期 :*2020年10月21日 00:21
>>>>> *主 题 :**Re: Shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext-07*
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Sandy
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let me know if you are going to revise the draft and make any
>>>>> updates from my suggestions, and then I can wait for that update and then
>>>>> finalize my Shepherd write-up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Gyan
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 3:13 AM <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Gyan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thank you for your suggestion!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please find my answer inline with Sandy>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sandy
>>>>>> 原始邮件
>>>>>> *发件人:*GyanMishra
>>>>>> *收件人:*张征00007940;
>>>>>> *抄送人:*bier@ietf.org;bier-chairs@ietf.org;
>>>>>> draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext@ietf.org;
>>>>>> *日 期 :*2020年10月20日 12:08
>>>>>> *主 题 :**Re: Shepherd’s review of draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext-07*
>>>>>> Hi Sandy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you think it would be worthwhile to mention the reasons for collection
>>>>>>
>>>>>> maybe in the introduction.  I think it would be helpful such as inter-as
>>>>>>
>>>>>> provisioning or any other reason but I really think that should be stated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand that according to RFC 7752 is for collection of IGP topology
>>>>>>
>>>>>> information of active or passive path instantiation for RSVP TE or SR-TE.
>>>>>> Here we are not doing any traffic engineering steering although BIER
>>>>>> behavior is similar to SR source routing.  So here you have new BIER
>>>>>>
>>>>>> specific TLV code points being provisioned by taking the RFC 7752 prefix
>>>>>>
>>>>>> attribute TLV to create three new BIER specific TLVs, BIER information,
>>>>>> BIER MPLS Encapsulation, BIER Ethernet Encapsulation.  Since the BIER
>>>>>>
>>>>>> specifics have nothing to do with TE attributes prefix TLV you really could
>>>>>>
>>>>>> have chosen of the three, node attribute TLV, link attribute TLV or prefix
>>>>>> attribute TLV.  Was their any reason why you chose prefix TLV over the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> other two to populate the bier specifics.  I noticed that the BFR prefix
>>>>>>
>>>>>> provisioning to each BFR is not in the any of the three new prefix TLVs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> provisioned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sandy> As you found, the BFR prefix is sent as BGP prefix, because
>>>>>> BIER
>>>>>>
>>>>>> info is used as sub-TLV or sub-sub-TLV of IGP protocols, the BGP-LS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> advertisement is the same with BIER. The reason can be added in
>>>>>> introduction,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but may not be many sentences, how to use it is depended on the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> network administrator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the BGP-LS TLV code points provisioned to date are IGP LSDB related
>>>>>>
>>>>>> topology information to rebuild the RSVP TEDs database or SR topology on a
>>>>>> Northbound PCE for active or passive path instantiation or TE or SR-TE
>>>>>> steered paths.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you give an example of an application that requires topology visibility
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that cannot be satisfied natively without having to export the topology to
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a controller. Is it maybe a ODL or Openflow or other 3rd party controller
>>>>>>
>>>>>> use for NMS functions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sandy> BGP-LS is used for topology collection, and the existed
>>>>>> collection
>>>>>>
>>>>>> does not include BIER information, one of the usecase is the
>>>>>> controller
>>>>>>
>>>>>> decide the BFERs for a specific multicast flow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it’s just data that is being gathered as this is BIER specific couldn’t
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you gather via NMS netconf / Yang data model for proactive monitoring of
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the BIER domain.  If the controller is not taking action or not doing any
>>>>>>
>>>>>> provisioning and just passive monitoring then I think NMS functionality can
>>>>>>
>>>>>> be accomplished by other means other than BGP-LS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sandy> Yes, you are right. The information can also be got by NMS
>>>>>> netconf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or YANG data model. They provide different methods for network
>>>>>> administrator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gyan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:54 PM <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Hi Gyan,
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > thank you very much for your comments!
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > As co-author of this draft, I'd like to answer your question.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > This BGP-LS extension is used for information collection in a BIER domain
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>>>>
>>>>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike
>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g> *Silver
>>>>> Spring, MD
>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>>>
>>>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike
>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g> *Silver
>>>> Spring, MD
>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>>
>>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>>
>>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g> *Silver
>>> Spring, MD
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>
>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>
>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>
>>
>>
>> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g> *Silver
>> Spring, MD
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>>
>> --
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>
>
>
> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g> *Silver
> Spring, MD
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
>
> --

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *



*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD