Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext
Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> Fri, 20 September 2019 21:01 UTC
Return-Path: <gjshep@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 41777120106; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 n-f0azKN1Lsc; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd41.google.com (mail-io1-xd41.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d41]) (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 19E7A120077; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd41.google.com with SMTP id c6so6083377ioo.13; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=JGMx1QkC8mmi0pXP4M0YD6WiNlOv6BVO8A7oEGEAyxI=; b=Tctf36zxpZsfTZ0PjAagD/TUC99U+c/lhrG21xS9/867Lzy9+IUZgqHs85lVKiFBmd ahICAxY9e0SJmzPc9zW+ZWFKMh6gm0IlDK3aO8MHH4oqiuIViX5XgLT549XFX4s3NqKO o32XpfJW95gQyVktCO7wZq0Snv/bo5gKS98hqMNuwiLnAhKAp+5FBZcXUxXRozk5uojv pHRoOWJ719V4uN377HeN8fL+mxtmySCTMnS9js/o5Liwk7X2/sxccHohHXcV5m6GW3tT wjSn40wpTMMxoL8ktT9d3OuS+TMwBOS8E4vLttmmO65GLMZ8ZQg/0SxDThtacbOZ5XMQ Lrsg==
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:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JGMx1QkC8mmi0pXP4M0YD6WiNlOv6BVO8A7oEGEAyxI=; b=FMgV9PE6atB9wRKiP8G4odq5rZ3MemFH20tick2a970Ff8Y3RUboZ9jFHzZO1OyFce EQhntbqAffSqJXCl/SkOE5UoROitJisce1I+s1WPYOZvJ6NNdD1zF+kkwbIQ+UpBQIeZ qf+x9Gv0l9hjeWiAN8brCiQ3S4ObnbwkpJexfvtIBjhGSHO6KHFH0rjwjjKb5v9Q+L11 Qdu4QQZQP/e2oKCgLu3j1AR7ZXPZFltH+3xTvQDOv+j8p8N37xJxsDpiPIsSWbb8Isa7 UfZq4WMPbGk3zUA2mPUkGNZPErHXG5uIkvwopsPfScFNeZ1VXroUH6UtTaviik4JF4SF 97ow==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVERiD0izrbv9GWYb1o7x98YeW/tV9jB+LSK0W9uo7G7M5CCbcF LoMhipegN/mmEhICKmRy/SZnQ3Rn+qHKHfaIr7M=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzfddKjbg+k2SAdktJVypMcLfbSFf8MENZDq71ucFAIqcqIo2IbSviMFpexzNavnU4zaQougXylLx2A4se5gxg=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:6b06:: with SMTP id g6mr2966763ioc.72.1569013287402; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABFReBre89+qM+NknwdUHFsCt=ro=WgGJwtXeMW_vAn0U2jB=g@mail.gmail.com> <DM5PR11MB2027825CAC27429C795BA910C1190@DM5PR11MB2027.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CABFReBqrCT5OasuU_EWRcrQH3xY39vC_rhjnG+qWR=6kW4ZZ1w@mail.gmail.com> <CABFReBryxj95x_CtPqXBwtwXaSRtTeGX4+QQFPwC6oowjDEdgw@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR11MB35582C8A3DAAF39053062204C1D70@BYAPR11MB3558.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR11MB35582C8A3DAAF39053062204C1D70@BYAPR11MB3558.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com
From: Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 14:01:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CABFReBopcYcQhPtOA2jkLJ62zsOZwBn2zV=X4_MTKurAoK=QQg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>
Cc: "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a4c2b10593025f77"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/eygnls77l3bcMp0wU3ModyO90Ds>
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, 20 Sep 2019 21:01:31 -0000
Can the authors please update the draft with the agreed changes? Please keep comments on the list or at least cc: chairs so we can track. One this is rev'd we can do a quick LC and progress. Thanks, Greg On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:35 AM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > > The authors have responded (please see attached) to all the comments and > baring one about TLV code-point space, rest all would address my comments. > I would wait for the updated version and the author’s decision on the > sub-TLV code-points issue before progressing this further. > > > > Thanks, > > Ketan > > > > *From:* BIER <bier-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Greg Shepherd > *Sent:* 08 August 2019 01:34 > *To:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com> > *Cc:* idr-chairs@ietf.org; BIER WG <bier@ietf.org>; Alvaro Retana < > aretana.ietf@gmail.com> > *Subject:* Re: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext > > > > Please. We need to progress this work. > > > > Thanks > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:43 AM Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> wrote: > > Can the authors please address Ketan's issues here? > > > > Thanks, > > Greg > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 12:23 AM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) < > ketant@cisco.com> wrote: > > 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