Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-06.txt

Hi Gyan,

Thanks for your review and feedback.

Please check inline below.

From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Sent: 07 May 2021 21:36
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-06.txt

Hi Ketan

Thank you for updating the draft and I do like the more appropriate name change from

“ North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering (TE)

Information Using BGP”

To

Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering Information Using BGP

[KT] Can you please clarify why this change would be required or even appropriate. The bis is to fix some issues and clarify some aspects of the original BGP-LS specification. It does not aim to change the purpose of the extensions.

Few comments.

In RFC 7752 where does in mention BGP-LS AFI/SAFI?
[KT] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-06#section-4.2

I think it should be added if missing.

Also since the same

71
BGP-LS
[RFC7752<https://www.iana.org/go/rfc7752>]
72
BGP-LS-VPN

Also the SR BGP-LS extension uses the same AFI/SAFI above maybe mentioning normative reference to the SR BGP-LS extension.
[KT] That would be backwards. RFC7752 (and this bis document) is the base BGP-LS. The SR extensions for BGP-LS has normative reference to the base so we cannot make a reverse reference. Please clarify if I am missing something here.

I think we should add the AFI/SAFI reference to the draft below.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16

Also in the abstract mentions Traffic Engineering referring to RSVP TE and then in the introduction mentions TEDs.  As referring to TE could mean RSVP-TE or SR maybe in the abstract state RSVP-TE as this specification is strictly for RSVP-TE.
[KT] I am not sure if that is necessary. The specification is about providing IGP topology database – it does not provide only the subset that is used by RSVP-TE. Also, the specification does not go into the protocol extensions for signaling of the TE paths.

Thanks,
Ketan

Kind Regards

Gyan

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 1:38 AM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
Hi All,

This is mostly a refresh that also includes fixes for editorial nits in addition to the following changes related to the IANA considerations:

1) Includes updated text from draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry for the DE Guidance
2) Changes the policy from Specifications Required to RFC Required for some of the flags registries that were missed by RFC7752
3) Removes the column for "ISIS TLV/Sub-TLV" from the IANA registry table for BGP-LS TLVs/Sub-TLVs since only a subset of them have equivalent ISIS encodings

Thanks,
Ketan

-----Original Message-----
From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org<mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>
Sent: 03 May 2021 11:04
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org<mailto:i-d-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-06.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering Information Using BGP
        Author          : Ketan Talaulikar
        Filename        : draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-06.txt
        Pages           : 63
        Date            : 2021-05-02

Abstract:
   In a number of environments, a component external to a network is
   called upon to perform computations based on the network topology and
   the current state of the connections within the network, including
   Traffic Engineering (TE) information.  This is information typically
   distributed by IGP routing protocols within the network.

   This document describes a mechanism by which link-state and TE
   information can be collected from networks and shared with external
   components using the BGP routing protocol.  This is achieved using a
   new BGP Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) encoding
   format.  The mechanism is applicable to physical and virtual IGP
   links.  The mechanism described is subject to policy control.

   Applications of this technique include Application-Layer Traffic
   Optimization (ALTO) servers and Path Computation Elements (PCEs).

   This document obsoletes RFC 7752 by completely replacing that
   document.  It makes some small changes and clarifications to the
   previous specification.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-06
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-06

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-06

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org<http://tools.ietf.org>.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org<mailto:Idr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org<mailto:Idr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
--

[http://ss7.vzw.com/is/image/VerizonWireless/vz-logo-email]<http://www.verizon.com/>

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect

Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com<mailto:gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>

M 301 502-1347