Re: [Idr] Adoption: draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03.txt and draft-li-sr-policy-path-segment-01.txt [9/17 to 10/1/2019]

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 02 October 2019 13:16 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C230A120045 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 06:16:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 16lQGx9qolFw for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 06:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd34.google.com (mail-io1-xd34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d34]) (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 4812F12000F for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 06:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd34.google.com with SMTP id c25so56671359iot.12 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Oct 2019 06:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=omLR4CXtOdm8/QJ6+BjfZ5mP9mZptwgUNifs92oLncw=; b=NBAu1kIvC7MND1rmAEZ0OYT6fewi6K/WyJEK1UEZIF5b/FgIYlorpl6U9IWYLoPqll 39sgglW60Zhi8WhLIaFd7TxDUW3t8C1KC/olbKsZ4u0gnCd1nvLk1NdgQqNpHpTYq75m gEfjhLePYHVQXysQp2gWottUYxUva9L9BU+0IGLm4rf3hB7FeB+6OQLCW6oX/EQU2kFQ EEtzxG+aiR2bkIFkQxGaD48FxY/j4pttufB/1DFwWCmqYeoeSiXJ8eWJE9PJPg5CvMHD MnD4qlaJ0rLcgZQhWTq27z1pFhTPzL1rWpl7K9vXQ7SVot5+yNPsGIAiUvYGgGkYxveO Pz7w==
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=omLR4CXtOdm8/QJ6+BjfZ5mP9mZptwgUNifs92oLncw=; b=gjNDdaxsMgrfXULPqLadb+RoJT3P57R/i9qOXmIUQIRAuwW5fCj5u4mYimloDgXfI1 AhK22gbaJeaxpjWQkmWmsIvWClGIbMVOu4eS/fRCWW64HJVO/qBZKksaE1+fiD/ukBW3 y2e4ywjoKe5b7vXI7JAe7rUiAzlETOx6QPDnWMguhd1R/eyZSZ4whxzh+mNs6uQ4Wk9a PwpVpE4pXlwnGBaj1zdj55lcf+I84/aPr9L7Wqe5ppEI2HgD+HVvMwSql40Vefpfvvq7 l7/7sggMyYoeu4Od4Md/9erTFYQRarf3lN6PTB/1R6L/FFKL1L2n7CwF2HFEpmVqEiAr OMew==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWcOTSmFcNtyUqaQMVixPkYNuBweGMdiVDBvMVGOeEYEwGoxSSH IZzC4xkoFm4Lw+0UHenXaqWY+/01nm3yX1HzPOU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyOOQ/DRFxWMNpFLN1WwywTOTXEMVZ1gEZnr96QkE3ETDYz+l/VvAJkUMHduTBp41LUx78Ddxzk4V0OQjA7vVQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:3a12:: with SMTP id h18mr3770021ila.124.1570022195199; Wed, 02 Oct 2019 06:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <016601d56d75$e3756320$aa602960$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <016601d56d75$e3756320$aa602960$@ndzh.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 18:45:59 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn42Yi8Oo9D6gsX+5pXS_8LD9pop-wCq9L2+Z99fTZiBKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/2Z7bjxLELWLosG9ryuR2vpwiB-0>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption: draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03.txt and draft-li-sr-policy-path-segment-01.txt [9/17 to 10/1/2019]
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2019 13:16:39 -0000

Hi,

I am late by a day, but since chairs have not yet closed the poll - here I am!

I support adoption for both I-Ds.

Yes to first 3 questions and for the 4th - I have some suggestions
that can be worked on post adoption applicable for both I-Ds:

- Updated requirement language template as per RFC 8174, especially
because you use lowercase normative terms in this document.
- It may good to describe the case where a different path segment at
candidate path and segment list would be useful. Also we should make
it MUST to include both in the SID list rather than SHOULD.
- Extra 'Reserved' in section 3.1 of [1] (not in the figure)
- Remove 'which is a 128-bits value' in section 3.1 of [1] (as so far
you dont specify SRv6 in this I-D)
- We should clarify where is the 'SR Bidirectional Path Sub-TLV' included in.
- Suggested values for IANA, i guess get early IANA allocation post
adoption to avoid issues!
- In figures for sub-TLVs the bit numbering is bit off. Move one space
to the right.
- Can Path segment be part of the segment list (end of the list)?
Should we add some text?
- Can you recheck that a codepoint for the Path Segment sub-tlv
allocated in [1] can be re-used for sub-TLV of SR Segment sub-TLV in
[2]? I ask because usually BGP-LS use different registry.
- s/[I-D.li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution]/[I-D.li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment]/

Thanks!
Dhruv

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment/
[2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution-11

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:05 PM Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
>
> This begins a 2 week WG Adoption call two related drafts [9/17 to 10/1/2019]
>
> ·         draft-li-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03.txt and
>
> ·         draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-01.txt.
>
>
>
> You can access these two drafts at the following location:
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment/
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment/
>
>
>
> The authors have pointed out that the adoption of this
>
> draft since the following  SR-MPLS Path Segment draft has been adopted:
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-00
>
>
>
> Please consider the following questions in your responses?
>
>
>
> 1)      Should this SR Policy technology be included in BGP for SR-MPLS
>
>
>
> Spring has adopted the draft, but IDR can provide feedback
>
> to spring about putting this technology in BGP.
>
>
>
> 2)      Is this technology a good way to implement the required
>
> Features in BGP?
>
>
>
> 3)      Is this technology ready for adoption?
>
>
>
> 4)      Do you have any concerns about adopting this technology?
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers, Susan Hares
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr