Re: [Idr] IPR call for draft-ietf-idr-rpd-11.txt (7/23 to 8/6/2021)

[Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>]

Hi, All:

 

I think there are some points should be addressed before it publication:

1)     Will the draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-05
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-0
5#page-12> [Wide Community], which is one of normative reference documents
for the draft-ietf-idr-rpd-11.txt, be forwarded later? I think the [Wide
Community] document will influence the final publication of this draft.  If
[Wide Community] will not be forwarded, would it better to define its own
container for the attached attributes sub-TLV?

2)     Should the "RouteAttr" described in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-rpd#section-4.2.1 be
Sub-TLV of Target TLV, and other associated Sub-TLV be sub-sub TLV?

3)     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-rpd#section-9.2
describes the "Routing Policy Type" registry, is it necessary? 

In https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-rpd#section-4.1, it
describes:

"Policy Type:  1 octet indicates the type of a policy.  1 is for Export
policy. 2 is for Import policy.  If the Policy Type is any other value, the
NLRI is corrupt and the enclosing UPDATE message MUST be ignored."  

Is this the place to use the "Routing Policy Type"? If so, it is
unreasonable to use other values as required by the IANA considerations.

4)     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-rpd#section-9.5
is named as "Attribute Change Sub-TLV" Registry, should it be "Parameter
TLV" as indicated in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-rpd#section-4.2.2

 

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

 

 

 

 

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2021 1:23 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [Idr] IPR call for draft-ietf-idr-rpd-11.txt (7/23 to 8/6/2021)

 

This begins a 2 week WG last call on draft-ietf-idr-rpd-11.txt. 

 

There is one missing IPR statement from Liang Ou. 

Liang should send the IPR statements in response to this WG LC.  

 

The implementation report is at: 

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-rpd%20impolementations%20


 

The two implementations are different implementations from Huawei. 

 

This document describes BGP Extensions for Routing

   Policy Distribution (BGP RPD) to support this.

 

Please consider in your review of this draft: 

1) if this draft is ready for deployment, 

2) if the BGP extensions for routing policy distribution 

Help deployments of BGP in the Internet. 

 

Cheerily, Susan Hares