[Idr] Fw: draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-09 - WG adoption call (7/22/2024 to 8/9/2024)

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sue and WG,
  I support the adoption of this draft and my replies about the questions are:
    1. Yes. It is very useful.
    2. Yes. The draft is clear.
    3. I don't see any other security concerns.
    4. Yes. It is ready to move on.

B.R.
Zehua Hu
China Telecom

 
From: Susan Hares
Date: 2024-07-23 09:41
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [Idr] draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-09 - WG adoption call (7/22/2024 to 8/9/2024)
This begins a 2+ week WG adoption call (7/22 to 8/9/2024)for 
draft-chen-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-09.txt.
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp/) 
 
The authors should respond to this WG adoption call with an email with the IPR statement. 
 
Document focus: 
This document defines a new TLV in BGP-LS to report the NRP-ID
associated with an SR Candidate Policy Path (CP). 
 
Links to Spring: During the 5/20/2024 interim, the following question was raised:
What is the relationship between the information in this draft and the information in draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments?
 
Ran answered the following: 
Due to the resource SID mechanism defined in the draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments/)
the headend node does not have information about the relationship between 
Candidate Path (CP) and NRP IDs, so it currently does not consider reporting the 
relationship between CP and NRP ID. The current draft is only for the scenario 
where data packets carry NRP ID.  The NRP ID is used with the normal SR SID as 
the resource used will be indicated by the NRP-ID.  An SR Policy candidate path(CP) 
may be instantiated with a specific NRP on the headend node via a local configuration, 
PCEP, or BGP SR Policy signaling. Then the state and attributes of the NRP associated 
with the candidate path of SR policy can be distributed to the controller.
 
In your discussion, please consider:
 
Is the addition of NRP-ID information to SR BGP-LS information valuable to networks?
Does the draft clearly specify the TLV?
Are there any security concerns about reporting NRP-ID?
Is this document ready to adopt? 
 
Cheerily, Sue