Re: [Idr] Review Updates to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 20 February 2018 18:52 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24CBB12DA4E; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 10:52:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T3w433iIBnkF; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 10:52:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22e.google.com (mail-oi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 024ED124319; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 10:52:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id e10so6872228oiy.8; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 10:52:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=BjucFhyx/DtoAJIqQP9n/N0JwhzuH/sb1t1xA7zLvPg=; b=Hbm4onL5zHWLomr0BYDTbiAVsgYb1WDqRh6BcM4MGzdORKhIHrfpwQO9eF93dun+qu wisxFvrC3vXC+dZVR0PhRDEPzDPn4VxSYyYbt0tu6J7SIyZmUbSAcM4MT/TLb1+l+YGX +OC8MhgPhEu2Pkbpl93IgetYRA43crGJIb2bhweVYSMSUX4KyWeDrsJVnxetRy1HIFc1 CqJU314jp3cgSDTQ3FaO04f8tWrkalSgPFDdPbmYtDMsK3EtCB2tu78Bk/PwyPbXvrtO lOkqA6YcB1gFwUD7twRm5/Ufmiy/VqkZtU9gI6TAQGOogpg8m9oTqWvkgp7IR2nqRmn2 87CQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BjucFhyx/DtoAJIqQP9n/N0JwhzuH/sb1t1xA7zLvPg=; b=DClobR80fN8hyvAYVW5Z0izzCypKdY5jPsCcqy+tLLVrE1q93ZT2XGOANMTEZCuzdP YeTff+HRb7kuKP2heYfEdgIbJxVvgVSga4ZzdRNEhR6itxGOWILUYuGpfLt8jxYqGgJt 3aypuo1Ag1tKlElpu67mHsaF5DcF1pJd3bS+Fpkp/+R1wJhmwNemUJMAcqarPlxDpwU6 7PWbJQz0n5LiCt+F4bODvDUhwPWbHWSn6SW/CG/r5JsdbE4QubEA+DtUmsJLd6sxYUWx 1hGL27jYXo2uVeHvoHEuRgdiipwY/wg0qmt/vdU6A89uX160DlNfGeuvdPsIv4m3BsLK dFAg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPCnji/QWca1HWGAyiQdQb3GKO6YJgMx5wzxKp8sEDofAAm7Rreu 7HCjJlSwB0NsQBymp0rtO/nNVdPGlpgswjqm4mU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELu4pmkE7q1bAKbmG2kAfnvW26WebALs3Ydf9EOPmtj4RibBK/I2aQKrnlq74a0ydL1NU/velwjQhToYgQu1uXA=
X-Received: by 10.202.68.213 with SMTP id r204mr482047oia.80.1519152768397; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 10:52:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:52:47 -0500
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <C46BE9FB-AA2E-49BC-8942-579020733FF9@cisco.com>
References: <CAMMESszyqjqm+m3J00GWG1Dw0OjYdo-GGXePxcWvyBp4sgtm6Q@mail.gmail.com> <C46BE9FB-AA2E-49BC-8942-579020733FF9@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Airmail (467)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:52:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMMESswdNPJbCgEohLCgai6AHaH31tjfq22PQnmdrYr=EbCdow@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Cc: "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d74ea1eb7170565a951ca"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/BWdNpvl_p_xuQs-JS96hsQZDfFA>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Review Updates to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 18:52:51 -0000

On February 17, 2018 at 3:41:02 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) (acee@cisco.com)
wrote:

Acee:

Hi!

There is one more change we’d like to make to the draft that requires WG
approval. One revelation during the review process for this draft is that
the SRv6 use case as currently documented isn’t really that compelling and
there are some details that are unspecified. Other than validation, the
IPv6 SID TLV hasn’t been implemented. Consequently, we’d like to remove the
IPv6 SID TLV and SRv6 dataplane specification from the draft. Are there any
objections (other than the obvious one that it is very late to be making
this change)?



Here are a list of implementations and none have implemented the IPv6 SID:

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid%20implementations



Note that the code point for the IPv6 SID would be deprecated since
validation has been implemented in several implementations.



If there are no objections, I could make this change next week and we could
allow for an additional week for review.


This is a significant change!  Thanks for specifically pointing out the
lack support in the implementations for the IPv6 SID.  Please consider
adding an rfc7942-style section to the document.

While I don’t have a specific objection to you simplifying the document, it
is a decision that shouldn’t be made *after* the IESG has approved the
publication of the document.  OTOH, better late than never!

idr-chairs:  I am returning the document to the WG for discussion and
update.  If the WG reaches consensus on the proposed changes, I want to
make sure that it is done with the understanding that the related IPv6 work
will be done later.  IOW, the result should not be that the IPv6 work is
abandoned — I am sure that is not the intent.  Note that we don’t need to
discuss or adopt a specific alternative before processing this document.

Thanks!

Alvaro.