Re: [Idr] IPR call and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

["Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tianran,

Please check inline below.

From: Idr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Tianran Zhou
Sent: 03 November 2020 14:14
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; 'Acee Lindem (acee)' <acee=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] IPR call and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

Hi Authors,

I have several comments on this draft:

1. In the introduction:
I believe “Segment Identifier (SID) is often used as a shorter reference for "SRv6 Segment". ”  is not correct.

[KT] RFC8402 says “A segment is often referred to by its Segment Identifier (SID).” – I will update to use similar text.

2. In section 3.1:
The O-bit has dependency on I-D.ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam. IMO, this cannot pass the LC before ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam.
[KT] FYI - draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam has completed WGLC in 6man WG and is awaiting shepherd write-up. There is no such dependency.

And is there any other flag?
[KT] No other at this time.

3. There are several use of “A SRv6 SID” in the draft. I think it should be “An SRv6 SID”.
[KT] Ack – will fix.

4. In section 8:
You introduced the SID Structure TLV only with the format. It seems interesting.
I would like to see more text on this. For example, what’s the usage, how to deal with it, what’s the fault process.
[KT] The usage of this BGP-LS extension like the base BGP-LS spec and all other extensions is to provide (rather convey) topology information from the IGP to various applications like PCE or controllers. What and how those applications use the information for is outside the scope of BGP-LS. Also note that BGP-LS does not perform semantic validation of its TLVs. Please check https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-05#section-7.2.2 for further details.

Thanks,
Ketan

Thanks,
Tianran


From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 12:29 AM
To: 'Acee Lindem (acee)' <acee=[e-mail]<mailto:acee=[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] IPR call and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

Acee:

Thank you  for noting that the URL is incorrect.   The correct URL is at:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext/

Sue


From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 7:58 AM
To: Susan Hares; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] IPR call and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

Hi Sue, IDR WG,
I support publication of the document. Note that the URL below is for the flex-algo BGP-LS draft.
Thanks,
Acee

From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Sunday, November 1, 2020 at 10:26 PM
To: IDR List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [Idr] IPR call and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

This begins an IPR call and a 2 week WG LC for
draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1 to 11/16/2020)

You can access the draft at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo/

This draft focus on the BGP-LS support for SRv6.
Spring has proposed the SRv6 support in RFC8402
(see section 3.1.3 for mechanisms and section 8.2 for
Security considerations).

There are two implementations: Cisco and GoBGP
You can see the implementation report at:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext%20implementations

In your responses, please consider the following questions:
a) Is the SRv6 technology ready for deployment or
are there known issues?

b) Will SRv6 provide valuable support for
deployments of BGP-LS in support of source routing
(aka spring)?

c) Is this draft ready for publication?

If you know of additional implementations, please send
a note to the idr chairs with the information or
respond to this email.

Cheers, Susan Hares