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

[Huaimo Chen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Aijun,

    Thank you very much for your comments.

    My responses are inline below with [HC].

Best Regards,
Huaimo

________________________________
From: Idr <[e-mail]> on behalf of Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 5:18 AM
To: 'Susan Hares' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] IPR call for draft-ietf-idr-rpd-11.txt (7/23 to 8/6/2021)


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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-05%23page-12&data=04%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cb67d9b53c2244e6381a008d951a8afe8%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637630607226848366%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=5ZpdHDve2j0dLW%2BkW90OyEwNfluQT3D7wXqXnZrHL5M%3D&reserved=0>[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?

[HC]: Wide Community is very powerful. It will eventually

become a RFC. In addition to this document, there are other
working group documents that use Wide Community. The authors
of the Wide Community document also work on it.

2)     Should the “RouteAttr” described in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-rpd#section-4.2.1<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-rpd%23section-4.2.1&data=04%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cb67d9b53c2244e6381a008d951a8afe8%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637630607226848366%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=aSFPm1btQgvbCHdsGJumAMCsL6ohrM1u9ZNU%2Fa9bLg0%3D&reserved=0> be Sub-TLV of Target TLV, and other associated Sub-TLV be sub-sub TLV?

[HC]: We have changed "TLV/Sub-TLV" to "Sub-TLV" and rephrased the related text accordingly.

3)     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-rpd#section-9.2<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-rpd%23section-9.2&data=04%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cb67d9b53c2244e6381a008d951a8afe8%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637630607226858324%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=jtCxWAlBaUGtAwowgUTEmLLnlCLkUAIQwshtgoD9vkk%3D&reserved=0> describes the “Routing Policy Type” registry, is it necessary?

In https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-rpd#section-4.1<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-rpd%23section-4.1&data=04%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cb67d9b53c2244e6381a008d951a8afe8%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637630607226858324%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=IDMdeBVRm4koo3Bwlo3c8N2bMxk0qcc8hPh34y5KJj8%3D&reserved=0>, 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.

[HC]: You are right. There is no other policy type except

for export and import. The "Routing Policy Type" registry

is not needed. We have removed it.

4)     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-rpd#section-9.5<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-rpd%23section-9.5&data=04%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cb67d9b53c2244e6381a008d951a8afe8%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637630607226868271%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=0wvPK%2BNvk7V8UsowNyKqFNAton5b9aYO5dB9rl%2FnGgo%3D&reserved=0> 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<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-rpd%23section-4.2.2&data=04%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cb67d9b53c2244e6381a008d951a8afe8%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637630607226868271%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=xqOrDBG3UWbMvzJmSKPSNnee%2Bn1pNbBJclM7kHXmazw%3D&reserved=0>

[HC]: The “Attribute Change Sub-TLV” is within the “Parameter TLV”.





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<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftrac.ietf.org%2Ftrac%2Fidr%2Fwiki%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-rpd%2520impolementations%2520&data=04%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cb67d9b53c2244e6381a008d951a8afe8%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637630607226868271%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=ITkstVwx5lYqsyihPPr5S13Z81Qk0tvV5ypcRSPTTNE%3D&reserved=0>



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