Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext
"Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com> Fri, 31 May 2019 07:23 UTC
Return-Path: <ketant@cisco.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 B95051200B7; Fri, 31 May 2019 00:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=iOI6GRrr; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=e7d1b9/2
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 hA1UOd4eBXfQ; Fri, 31 May 2019 00:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A63A12001B; Fri, 31 May 2019 00:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=22030; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1559287417; x=1560497017; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=idl/kHKkHdoETqw9mjYwmgGQm0k6Y2DEO5qZF7Vy11k=; b=iOI6GRrrzhKtnkAQKrWSnMUAd2PTC6ICJYFt9JNJkQmN4aaug1NGeH/o Q1T7u/AHRemKFuR1b0f2X4/yBBbtV0BI2G/9G0Hu2IuXJxB6A7MfuSjzV VUMYym0LcqZyD4t07FkBxku7EP8Wj8HY+yDAo8JyZ9HeWKVA7NsUXL82I k=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:kj74GRMOnq3s7q8hvTEl6mtXPHoupqn0MwgJ65Eul7NJdOG58o//OFDEuKQ/l0fHCIPc7f8My/HbtaztQyQh2d6AqzhDFf4ETBoZkYMTlg0kDtSCDBj4IeLjaTASF8VZX1gj9Ha+YgBY
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AIAAA71vBc/4sNJK1lGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEHAgEBAQGBUQUBAQEBCwGBDi8kLANpVSAECygKhAqDRwOEUooggleSXYRSgS4UgRADVAkBAQEMAQEjCgIBAYRAAheCaCM0CQ4BAwEBBAEBAgEEbRwMhUoBAQEEEhEKEwEBNwEPAgEIEQQBASsCAgIwHQgCBAENBQgagwGBHU0DHQEOnnoCgTiIX3GBL4J5AQEFgUZBgwIYgg8DBoE0AYRqhmsXgUA/gRABRoJMPoJhAQECAQGBKjUkB4JdMoImi1aCPoRnIIgNjUoJAoINhWFZjQaCIYZvhAGJS4x3hwmPBgIEAgQFAg4BAQWBTzhncXAVO4Jsgg+DcIUUhT4BcgGBKIwVAYEgAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,534,1549929600"; d="scan'208,217";a="283355372"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 31 May 2019 07:23:36 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-018.cisco.com (xch-aln-018.cisco.com [173.36.7.28]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4V7NZB7024337 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 31 May 2019 07:23:35 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by XCH-ALN-018.cisco.com (173.36.7.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 31 May 2019 02:23:34 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 31 May 2019 02:23:34 -0500
Received: from NAM05-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 31 May 2019 02:23:34 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=idl/kHKkHdoETqw9mjYwmgGQm0k6Y2DEO5qZF7Vy11k=; b=e7d1b9/25Nb4egxPzzYOujVnPeEJbJfKMiV6R65X4a3dr+AI9s+wfkWDMIQkNo3v2Je0vbAu2Bt4vMus3iSyUVgTAqkrGWuFmOQNN3PKFe9ELtAd/QO3TOKNKfHUzSy2LkNyfC1GGpwW7T3uKV+4jizhPbGzHGdNTphqAw3Y+5U=
Received: from DM5PR11MB2027.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.168.103.22) by DM5PR11MB1788.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.175.87.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1922.21; Fri, 31 May 2019 07:23:33 +0000
Received: from DM5PR11MB2027.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1487:6a62:8e05:d2c4]) by DM5PR11MB2027.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::1487:6a62:8e05:d2c4%2]) with mapi id 15.20.1922.021; Fri, 31 May 2019 07:23:33 +0000
From: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>
To: "gjshep@gmail.com" <gjshep@gmail.com>, BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>
CC: "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, 'Alvaro Retana' <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext
Thread-Index: AQHVFx9ZBr6N/QtjjEOSIanaAhncz6aExwkQ
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 07:23:33 +0000
Message-ID: <DM5PR11MB2027825CAC27429C795BA910C1190@DM5PR11MB2027.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CABFReBre89+qM+NknwdUHFsCt=ro=WgGJwtXeMW_vAn0U2jB=g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABFReBre89+qM+NknwdUHFsCt=ro=WgGJwtXeMW_vAn0U2jB=g@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ketant@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [72.163.220.17]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 0a47a92f-1c8b-40e5-947b-08d6e598e3b8
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:DM5PR11MB1788;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR11MB1788:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 6
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR11MB1788556A53BE481A78C32DBBC1190@DM5PR11MB1788.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 00540983E2
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(396003)(346002)(376002)(366004)(136003)(39860400002)(189003)(199004)(81156014)(8676002)(476003)(81166006)(8936002)(53936002)(68736007)(25786009)(7736002)(11346002)(74316002)(6116002)(6246003)(790700001)(14444005)(9326002)(33656002)(52536014)(14454004)(71200400001)(606006)(71190400001)(486006)(3846002)(73956011)(5660300002)(76176011)(26005)(236005)(86362001)(4326008)(2501003)(186003)(64756008)(102836004)(7696005)(229853002)(110136005)(53546011)(6436002)(66066001)(2906002)(256004)(54896002)(446003)(9686003)(66946007)(54906003)(99286004)(478600001)(966005)(76116006)(66556008)(6306002)(6506007)(66446008)(316002)(55016002)(66476007); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR11MB1788; H:DM5PR11MB2027.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: HmP8WEj3Zzcp5a1M1cHojwUR4QinFOnhhEoamEWkCXsAighYBCBjv3gS1jCExpnrUNkd+tRMt83iuDmjhSuDaEn1MHo/TAxcKHIQbQlFZQ60dzcaT3zRctP0x8gzwLB/fjP7pJdP3L9JuXFE8T7Ep80FOpSdIRJI00loxqObyulmHGnZzh6iABcXX8Ra19IyzCwboyOkJWqkVRFS4ZelS6ZU4Dpm6jygBw6n6TEbVFUfuL+6k1LXBaWeRFNPy7LvfZX1k4WHVTOpH0W0UmHOt7te1+EGdbKwWKBdx4SLtXppGeNzIrOWz8nmo63ZxejOb/2t4UM756ZZl+1oza1XeVhsQMcXrdY9AkK0i38AJbyuaJjaMXIsYb2AZsNLJw8RW63QGxXrRS6z5CoMKSZIGeVTjsR0ZsIYDGSaGUupyF8=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM5PR11MB2027825CAC27429C795BA910C1190DM5PR11MB2027namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 0a47a92f-1c8b-40e5-947b-08d6e598e3b8
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 31 May 2019 07:23:33.6727 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: ketant@cisco.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR11MB1788
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.28, xch-aln-018.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-6.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/Js0jF2M9TVWqdQb92r2Y0LMUb38>
Subject: Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext
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: Fri, 31 May 2019 07:23:41 -0000
Hello, I’ve reviewed this draft and have some comments below. I do not believe this draft is ready until they are addressed. IMHO the BIER WG should also cross-post this to the IDR WG so that it gets sufficient eyeballs from the folks working on BGP-LS there. Please note that there are couple of points in my email below related to code point allocation and implementation requirements that are followed for documents in IDR WG. I am also copying the IDR chairs and Alvaro so that we can come to some common understanding across WGs producing documents related to BGP-LS extensions. General : In most cases, the BGP-LS extensions arise from similar extensions to the IGPs. I assume this is also the case with this document? It becomes important and necessary that the document talks about the underlying IGP specs and the TLVs from where the information to be put into the new BGP-LS TLVs being defined. Otherwise, how would the BGP-LS producer implementation know what to construct the TLVs from? If this information is not being sourced from the IGPs, then likely the BFRs would all need to setup a BGP-LS sessions and then this information is sourced locally. I doubt this is the case, but please confirm. Sec 3 : Please expand “BFR” and explain what it is on the first usage. Sec 3 : There is no “BGP-LS Prefix Attribute TLV” in BGP-LS/RFC 7752. The name of the BGP Attribute introduced for BGP-LS is called BGP-LS Attribute (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7752#section-3.3). Some of the TLVs in this BGP-LS Attribute are called “Prefix Attribute TLVs” i.e. the ones that are associated with the BGP-LS Prefix NLRI. What we are introducing in this draft for BIER are more/new Prefix Attribute TLVs. Sec 3.1 : Why do we need the MT-ID in this TLV when we already have TLV 263 that indicates the MT-ID as part of the Prefix descriptor TLVs in the NLRI part? Sec 3.2 : What is BS Length? I don’t find it in the equivalent IGP TLVs in rfc8444 and rfc8401. Sec 3.2 : Says It MUST appear multiple times in the BIER TLV as described in [RFC8444<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8444>] This is not true. It should be a MAY not a MUST. Sec 3.3 : The BS Length is 4 bits in the IGPs while it is being introduced as an 8 bit field in BGP-LS. Normally, we should keep things aligned between IGPs and BGP-LS – however, if we want to not do this, then this document should have some text to explain how the length is encoded. Perhaps somewhat similar to how it’s explained for the label field. Sec 4 : IDR WG does not allow for “suggestions” or “recommendations” for code-points – since this is a BGP-LS document I would assume we follow the same rules even if this is BIER WG document? When required, the IANA early allocation procedure should be followed and the code points updated in the draft once that has been done. Otherwise we will end up having squatting and conflict issues since we will also have BGP-LS drafts in the LSR WG going forward. I hope we can come to some common understanding on this allocation process across the WGs. Another (unrelated) point is that the IDR WG expects implementation reports and progression to WGLC only after we’ve had 2 implementation reports – does this change for BGP-LS extensions from outside IDR? Sec 4 : The IANA BGP-LS Parameters registry has the “BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs” registry. Also, this document proposes to setup a new registry for the Encapsulation sub-TLV. We’ve never done this in BGP-LS previously and everyone (including sub-TLVs) allocates from the same flat space. If this document is proposing a deviation from this, then I believe it needs to be reviewed in IDR WG since that will likely change and set a precedent for how we allocate code-points for BGP-LS. Sec 5 : I think the text in this section is inadequate and we will face questions during AD/IESG reviews. Please consider borrowing text from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8571#section-3 (I assume this is straightforward case of taking info from IGPs into BGP-LS) on the lines of RFC7752. Thanks, Ketan From: BIER <bier-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Greg Shepherd Sent: 31 May 2019 01:09 To: BIER WG <bier@ietf.org> Subject: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext Solid support in the room in Prague. Now to the list. Please read and respond to this thread: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext/ Also need a volunteer Doc Shepherd. I'll buy you a beer. Voting ends 13 June 2019. Thanks, Shep (chairs)
- [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext Xiejingrong
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext zhang.zheng
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext Tony Przygienda
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext chen.ran
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext Greg Shepherd
- Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext chen.ran