Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt - WG consensus pending - Additional revisions needed

[Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>]

Sue,

Many thanks for your comments, please see inline.
Updated draft has been published.

Cheers,
Jeff
On Sep 11, 2019, 9:51 AM -0700, Susan Hares <[e-mail]>, wrote:
> Ketan, Jeff,  Uma,  Greg and Nikos:
>
> Thank you for the additions in -06.txt on the manageability section.
> It helps clarify the manageability.  However, this draft needs
> another revision to handle 2 major points (1) mentioning RFC7752bis,
> 2) yang model reference)) and an editorial point.
>
> I mentioned referencing RFC5572bis in my previous comments.
> The text below gives some specific text as guidance.
> The yang model references added in -06.txt is not exactly accurate.
> I’ve provided a textual suggestion.
>
> We have two early reviews outstanding: OPS-DIR (overdue), and
> RTG-DIR (due 9/14/2016).     If you could get -07.txt out
> so both reviewers could review the -07.txt, it would be helpful.
>
> Cheerily,  Sue
>
> ---------------
> 2 Major points:
>
> Major point 1: RFC7752bis should be referenced.
>                              It can be referenced as informational.
[jeff] Ack, RFC7752bis would go into informal references not to delay the process.
>
> Why change:  RFC7752 has known gaps in the clarity of the
>    error handling section.  Pointing to work that
>      is developing for RFC7752bis will answer questions
>       that the security area wants to see resolved.
>
>       I agree with the authors of RFC7752bis that rushing
>       RFC7752bis work is not wise.  I have augmented the
>       shepherd’s report with language to support this issue.
>
> Suggested textual changes:
> Location:  7. Security Considerations  page 7.
> What: [paragraph 2] replacement
>
> Old/The document does not introduce security issues beyond those
> Discussed in [RFC7752], [RFC8475], and [RFC8491]. /
>
> New /The document does not introduce additional security issues beyond discussed
> In [RFC7752], [RFC8476] and [RC8491].   However, [RFC7752] is being
> revised in [RFC7752bis] to provide additional clarification in several portions
> of the specification after receiving feedback from implementers.
> One of the places that is being clarified is the error handling and security.
> It is expected that after [RFC7752bis] is released that implementers will
> update all BGP-LS base implementations improving the error handling for
> protocol work (including this draft) that depend on this function.
[jeff] Ack
> Major Point 2:  [draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang] does not cover
> the manageability features of MSD in BGP
>
> Why change:  The yang model [draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang] data model
> does not provide any  link to the BGP model or an extension for BGP-LS,
> or a further extension to BGP-LS for SR-routing MSD.
>
> Text change:
> Location: section 6, second full paragraph:
>
> Old: /The extensions specified in this document, do not introduce
> any new configuration or monitoring aspects in BGP or BGP-LS
> other than as discussed in [RFC7742]. /
>
> New:/The extensions specified in this document, do not specify
> any new configuration or monitoring aspects in BGP or BGP-LS.
> The specification of BGP models BGP and BGP-LS models is an
> ongoing work based on the Yang model  [draft-ietf-bgp-model-06].
>
> The management of the MSD features within an ietf segment-routing
> stack  is also an ongoing work based on the yang model specified
> in [draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang].   Management of the segment routing
> in IGPs is ongoing work for ISIS  (see [draft-ietf-isis-sr-yang]), and
> OSPF (draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang)]. /
>
[jeff] Ack
>
>
> Editorial issue:
>
> Terminology
> Please add a definition for MSD capabilities  - you use it in section 2 first sentence.
>
> Why: A definition will help the reader.   Otherwise, I suspect we will get an AD comment or
> an IESG comment on “what is a MSD capability”.
[jeff] Ack
>
>
> From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 10:46 AM
> To: 'Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)'; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt - WG consensus pending
>
> Ketan:
>
> Thank you for the reminder.  I am reviewing the document and the shepherd’s report this morning.
>
> Sue Hares
>
> From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 1:14 PM
> To: Susan Hares; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt - WG consensus pending
>
> Hi Sue,
>
> We have published the v06 last week. There have been no further implementation report updates (besides the two that were done previously).
>
> Could you please review the draft and implementation report updates for the draft progression?
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
> From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 15 August 2019 20:46
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt - WG consensus pending
>
> The WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt has completed.
>
> The authors should
>
> 1. Submit draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-06.txt
> 2. Complete the Wiki page on the implementations.
>
>
> At that point, the Shepherd report can be completed, and the draft sent to Alvaro for review.
>
> Cheerily, Sue
> From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
> Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 11:17 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt - WG consensus pending
>
> Ketan:
>
> Thank you for this response.   Please send me a note when you begin you have completed -06.txt,
> and any updates.
>
> I encourage other implementers to either update the web page
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd%20implementations
>
> or to send information to the WG chairs.
>
> Cheerily, Susan Hares
>
>
> From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 7:07 AM
> To: Susan Hares; 'IDR'
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt - WG consensus pending
>
> Hi Sue/All,
>
> The authors are working on the update and we’ll post it once done/ready.
>
> I’ve updated the implementation report with most of the items that you have suggested for the implementations that I am aware of. For the error handling part, since that text would get added in v06, we can look at that aspect after the posting is done.
>
> I believe there are other implementations and would request WG members to update the same at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd%20implementations
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
> From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 07 August 2019 22:54
> To: 'IDR' <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt - WG consensus pending
>
> The WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt concludes on 8/8/2019.
>
> At this point, we have about 12 people who have participated in this last call by making comments.   All comments regarding publication appear to be positive.   If you wish to make additional comments, please make your comments by 8/8/2019.
>
> The implementations come from a single vendor (cisco).  A 1 week query will be made (starting on 8/8/2019)  to determine if the WG will accept 2 implementations from the same vendor to meet IDR requirement for 2 implementations.
>
> The authors of this draft (Jeff,  Uma, Ketan, Greg, Nikos) need to do the following:
>
> 1. Post an -06.txt  revision that addresses any comments received at IETF 105 or on the WG list,
> 2. Upgrade the interoperability report at
>
>   https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd%20implementations
>
> With details on the following MUST Clause support
>
> Reference are:  section 3
>
>       *  MSD-Value : a number in the range of 0-255.  For all MSD-Types,
>          0 represents the lack of ability to impose an MSD stack of any
>          depth; any other value represents that of the node.  This value
>          MUST represent the lowest value supported by any link
>          configured for use by the advertising protocol instance.]
> Reference in section 4: - a similar definition
>      *  MSD-Value : a number in the range of 0-255.  For all MSD-Types,
>         0 represents the lack of ability to impose an MSD stack of any
>         depth; any other value represents that of the link when used as
>         an outgoing interface.]
>
>
> Expected addition to Wiki document is the following information
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Support for zero MSD-value:
>     Node MSD TLV:  yes/no
>     Link MSD TLV: yes/no
>
> Mechanism for reporting zero-value:
>
> Error handling of MSD TLV  (according to RFC7752):
>   Node MSD TLV:  yes/no
>   Link MSD TLV :    yes /no
>
>
> Mechanism for reporting errors on MSD TLV:  (log error in log file)
>