Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09.txt (6/26 to 7/17)

[Wu Jin <[e-mail]>]

Hi Susan, all,

I support the publication of the draft. It provides the best compatibility with existing protocol approach and enables a smooth migration.


From: Idr <[e-mail]> on behalf of Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 09:53
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09.txt (6/26 to 7/17)

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

This begins a 3-week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09.txt
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!A8b-Lg7bRqxSnz5_ESZgoOUlQTqHwBjSFVlEKvWSidqfFJ-gsiM-CuXX7VuUJrYE4fJ1B7X3tQtx6-I$>

This draft will be published as experimental.   A draft
which is published as experimental,  can be republished
later as a proposed standard if the WG requests it.

The implementation report is at:
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!A8b-Lg7bRqxSnz5_ESZgoOUlQTqHwBjSFVlEKvWSidqfFJ-gsiM-CuXX7VuUJrYE4fJ1B7X3UYWt5aI$>

The authors and contributors should reply to this email with their statement
about whether they know of any IPR related to this draft.

One additional rule is necessary for this WG LC.
Please consider this draft only and do not use
comparisons to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car.

This WG LC is beginning now because we are heading into the
summer holidays in several countries, and I would like to get
input on this draft before IETF-117.

In parallel with this WG LC, I have asked my two co-chairs to
review the draft.  Keyur Patel’s review will probably appear early
next week (during US July 4th Holiday).    The review from
Jeff Haas will also come next week as Jeff is on vacation.
We will also request directorate reviews prior to IETF-117.

The IDR WG should consider:
1. Do you see any major technical flaws in this document?

2.  If you are an operator, have you tried this technology?
Do you have any comments on the manageability sections?

3.  Do you have any security concerns?

4.  There are two ways to provide scaling:
1) theoretical scaling based on real data
(application sizing estimates), and
2) scaling numbers based on experimentation
(aka benchmark tests).

RFCs (IDR and Benchmarking WG) have standardized
Methods for both.  Both the CAR and CT teams
were asked for scaling numbers so that we could
move drafts from experimental to proposed standard
without going back to gather these numbers.

In your feedback on scaling, please provide the
type of scaling numbers you think the section gives
and then give your feedback.  I’m hoping this
helps this discussion.

5. Does this draft provide support for SRv6?
Is there anything that must be added?

6. Are there any editorial flaws in sections?

Cheerily, Sue

PS – The draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car WG LC will start
Before IETF-116 (probably within a week).

_______________________________________________ Idr mailing list [e-mail] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!A8b-Lg7bRqxSnz5_ESZgoOUlQTqHwBjSFVlEKvWSidqfFJ-gsiM-CuXX7VuUJrYE4fJ1B7X3U3xcD3Q$