Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00 and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02 (2/15/2024 to 2/29/2024) - Extended 1 week to 3/7/2024

["Martin Vigoureux (Nokia)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Sue,

I have read these two documents and support them moving forward.

-m

Le 2024-03-02 à 13:26, Susan Hares a écrit :
>
>     This call is extended 1 week to 3/7/2024 to allow others to
>     comment on this call.
>
>     Cheerily,
>
>     Greetings IDR:
>
>     This begins a 2-week WG LC on the following two drafts created
>     from the text in
>
>     draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18 - that the IDR WG
>     approved for publication:
>
>     *   draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00  (proposed standard)
>
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/>
>
>     *   draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02 (experimental)
>
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext/
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext/>
>
>     The Authors (per IETF policy) are asked to respond to this message
>     with a
>
>     message indicating whether they know of any undisclosed IPR as the
>     documents stand now.
>
>     Please note there are 3 IPR declarations on these drafts.
>
>     History:
>
>     ======
>
>     After reviewing draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18,
>     Andrew Alston (IDR RTG AD)
>
>     asked that draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy be split into
>     two parts because
>
>     some segment types (C-L) did not have two implementations.
>
>     Therefore, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srsegtypes-ext-02 contains the text for
>
>     Segment types C-L.   This split has been discussed at IETF meetings.
>
>     Since Andrew Alston had personally implemented this draft,
>
>     he also asked for additional reviews on procedures.
>
>     During this review, the procedures regarding the link to RFC9012
>     were improved.
>
>     Issues in call:
>
>     ============
>
>     During the WG should note that the procedures specified in
>
>     draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00 do the following:
>
>     1.  Only apply to the SR Policy Tunnel (15) + SR Policy SAFI
>
>     2.  Do not require any of the TLVs defined in RFC9012 for other
>     tunnel types
>
>     3.  May ignore TLVs defined in RFC9012 for other tunnel types
>
>     4.  Do not use the validation process in RFC9012, and depend on
>     the SRPM to validate content.
>
>     5.  Makes changes to Color Extended Community [RFC9012] to add to
>     2-bits [C, O]
>
>     To support "color-only" (CO)  functions of section 8.8 of [RFC9256]
>
>     C0 - type 0 (00) - Specific end-point match (Match endpoint that
>     is BGP NH)
>
>     type 1 (01) - Specific or null end-point match (BGP NH or null
>     (default gw))
>
>     type 2 (10) - Specific, null, or any end-point match (BGP NH,
>     Null, or any endpoint)
>
>     type 3 (11) - Reserved
>
>     The SR Policy Tunnel functions in this draft use BGP as a
>     transport mechanism for the
>
>     Information contained in the SR Policy.
>
>     Please note that these procedures split the context validation
>     away from the
>
>     BGP module into the SRPM module.   This split is similar to the
>     BGP-LS split
>
>     syntax validation from context validation.
>
>     There are multiple implementations of this technology as detailed at:
>
>     https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/BGP-Implementation-report/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-implement
>     <https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/BGP-Implementation-report/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-implement>
>
>     The WG members are asked to confirm their agreement to the changes
>     made in this document.
>
>     If there are questions, please ask them on this mail thread. 
>     Please note any errors in the call are mine (and not the authors).
>
>     Cheerily, Sue
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr