Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-04 (March 7 to March 21)

Hannes Gredler <> Mon, 09 April 2018 12:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CEB4127871 for <>; Mon, 9 Apr 2018 05:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6PakZT48F-os for <>; Mon, 9 Apr 2018 05:23:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80B01126DC2 for <>; Mon, 9 Apr 2018 05:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u46so9369086wrc.11 for <>; Mon, 09 Apr 2018 05:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=yHDZ557FvYWyH9cgGj2XkpxKbKvoGCFn4upsBm6tj1E=; b=TyxVTze6Sve0GkV3UFZf+I1fyaQT4XdkmdXuFiZaxmKcNWjohGMhUWmQP5WTv3cLBP Xqw+8ClrpY8WXLlDnIXgVCtTlKdG5oGYZnzWVp8mVKKCrd57u6Tpi2ig+F9/J8i8cXgQ leGySQgnxj9aWAWMEb1ZTilwxwSe+hnDXsHAo1D2X2U6qIFmfx7/F6wwV4LCTwdcLUMC vxy5X5TFcX/rRXOJqiarPxc3Delh98mxSK6fUdchM444DFSzpbGRjkbb/0iR903E/7HG 9FA1dKlTYE76FDWPhULL9wkSqqRTsC5/9ufGE36qJiPa665X7rrx+K9/PyK/hwHsnhzh eNgw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=yHDZ557FvYWyH9cgGj2XkpxKbKvoGCFn4upsBm6tj1E=; b=DTKevHyQ/6t4D8HE9twGoCSluEWF5z7ItpsjurRkmO+JbD/+/NOXrHOZHYtwb8lFKb IB5nZPwLYPAcxIMAmCUJk6Tymxj4azGLab0/d/D8zB1RRwQPaPp+SRlWkGpMFbm7SJE5 3wjVvX2on4Jc1gW7u48Tbikf7oVBhCgge8Lsbwgr73LdxkJMKpUzu5wBJ1jhDVGpeaXt 7fn1+zUzUWJo2arAVqcUuGF8jNAhi1W13ejZRm3PFq9jjMQ4C4B1wM8u+C+7vwdhKP5t zeZL5pI1ZwQ9zLPCsjsl4M8xXQkB8BpjIgO3Zc+Usbqc2SEDJXuQJcn7ZdVubGxnbOtp XJyQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7EG5KmtuCB1MndXomrqVdplqijvuVqMbJID28R90gaFb/UmubrV vphJiUlGR8gljH1Z7dbH7QbFww==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx48a4aLR89OoNC3KXhNT/p3y1kgz7393A3Vm/Ei+QEofHzmqZzRFGkme4ROJMW5qDUMFaXtnTA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id e8mr25176341wri.149.1523276533436; Mon, 09 Apr 2018 05:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 19sm784072wmv.18.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Apr 2018 05:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-13C2019F-293E-4EBE-9D60-B1F7F0AEC36B
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Hannes Gredler <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15D60)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 14:21:29 +0200
Cc:, Hares Susan <>, idr wg <>, Jeffrey Haas <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <>
References: <011201d3b633$0b5fee60$221fcb20$> <> <>
To: "John G. Scudder" <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-04 (March 7 to March 21)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2018 12:23:19 -0000

hi john,

i am not aware of any undisclosed IPR.



> On 06.04.2018, at 20:17, John G. Scudder <> wrote:
> Hi Authors (and WG),
> Jeff raised two points during the WGLC:
>> On Mar 15, 2018, at 7:07 PM, Jeffrey Haas <> wrote:
>> Minor comments as part of a re-read while waiting on my plane:
>> RESERVED is not called out in its behavior.  Some place in the document
>> should mention the usual "MUST be set to zero on send, SHOULD be ignored on
>> receipt".  Otherwise, it's gibberish in, who knows what out when someone
>> tries to use this field in the future.
> I didn't see this one addressed. Authors, do you plan to update the draft to address the point? I didn't see any other points raised during the WGLC that would require an update.
>> There are a number of TLV value fields that may be of variable lengths.  In
>> many cases, those lengths are inherited from the underlying IGP documents.
>> What is not documented is the behavior when the TLV is well formed but has
>> unexpected length values.  Two simple examples:
>> - Prefix Attribute Flag TLV; varies by IGP
>> - Preference TLV; must be 1.
>> Do we treat this as malformed?  Do we ignore the sub-tlv?
> This point was discussed between Jeff and Ketan on the list. It seems to me that it does bear further discussion, but that the issue doesn't need to be fixed in this draft nor to be blocking on the conclusion of the WGLC. Assuming the WG feels we should do better, the most obvious thing IMO would be a document that updates RFC 7752.
> Finally, authors and contributors, we forgot to ask for the usual IPR declaration as part of the WGLC. If you could please take care of letting us know whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has not been declared, that would help conclude the WGLC. (Right now there is no IPR declared,
> Thanks,
> --John