Re: [Idr] WGLC is for "BGP Router Capabilities Attribute” [was: Re: WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-entropy-09 (8/29 to 9/12/2023)]

[John Scudder <[e-mail]>]

> On Sep 23, 2023, at 1:00 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> While looking more closely into the rules of sec 3.2, I had some questions about the following text:
> 
> 	• Is re-advertising a BGP route it received with a valid ELCv3 capability, and is not changing the value of N, or
> Perhaps this is better conveyed as "... and is preserving the value if N as received, or" ?

If you like that better, I’m fine with it. Changed in my working copy.

> 	• Is re-advertising a BGP route it received with a valid ELCv3 capability, and is changing the value of N, and knows (for example, through configuration) that the router represented by N is either the LSP egress and is EL-capable, or that it will simply swap labels without popping the BGP-advertised label stack and processing the label below, as with a transit LSR, or
> The above bullet is a heavily compounded statement and I think that given that it is in a list of OR, it would benefit from being split into further bullets. 
> 
> How about the following:
> 
> 	• Is re-advertising a BGP route it received with a valid ELCv3 capability, and is changing the next hop that it has received to N, and knows that this new next hop (normally itself) is EL-capable, or
> 	• Is re-advertising a BGP route it received with a valid ELCv3 capability, and is changing the next hop that it has received to N, and knows (for example, through configuration) that  the new next hop (normally itself) even if not EL-capable will simply swap labels without popping the BGP-advertised label stack and processing the label below, as with a transit LSR, or
> I think this would also make it clear that a router can process and propagate ELCv3 as a transit LSR even if it is itself not EL-capable.

I appreciate the effort to break up the bullet, which I agree was a bit of a slog to parse out. Yes, that seems reasonable, changed in my working copy.

Thanks,

—John