[Idr] Re: Shepherd review for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-02

liu.yao71@zte.com.cn Wed, 23 April 2025 02:03 UTC

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 10:02:57 +0800
Message-ID: <202504231002579389VewbgFx4sTyIrSyMuCYQ@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <CO1PR08MB6611453CAE2D97CA97ECCFE0B3DB2@CO1PR08MB6611.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: CO1PR08MB6611453CAE2D97CA97ECCFE0B3DB2@CO1PR08MB6611.namprd08.prod.outlook.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: liu.yao71@zte.com.cn
To: shares@ndzh.com
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
Message-ID-Hash: TWB6W2YWK4P2H6QZJ7H3FRJUIHCO4TZ5
CC: idr@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Subject: [Idr] Re: Shepherd review for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-02
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/CkMK28eRkWnDC5CNQwdLFIQl0wg>

Hi Sue,

Thanks a lot for your detailed shepherd review !
V-03(https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-03.html) has just been uploaded to address the issues listed , but there're still a few issues requiring discussion/confirmation. 
I copied the issues from wiki(https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/Shepherd-SR-BGP-LS/BGP-SR/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-mpls-elp) and attached my replies tagged with [Yao].

Thanks,
Yao


Issue-1: Section 3, paragraph starting "For example". BGP-LS reference
Should the BGP-LS reference be [RFC9085][RFC9552] or just [RFC9552]?

[Yao] RFC9552 is the basic BGP-LS mechanism. RFC9085 introduces carrying SR information in BGP-LS. RFC8814 proposes how to signal MSD in BGP-LS. And both RFC9088(IS-IS for MSD) and RFC9089(OSPF for MSD) both have a section on how to signal ERLD-MSD in BGP-LS. After re-checking the related RFCs, my personal understanding is that RFC9088 and  RFC9089 should be used here as reference for ERLD-MSD sigaling in BGP-LS and I submitted this in v-03 for now. Do you think this would be enough?

Issue-2. Missing Error handling for a malformed Explicit NULL Policy TLV
See [draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi] for example handling. A short section is necessary
to remind the user what error error handling (ignore if malformed, or
treat as withdraw) is appropriate for this the Explicti Null Policy TLV.
[Yao] There's no Explicit NULL Policy TLV in this document, I suppose the issue is to add error handling procedure for ELP Sub-TLV? I've added a short error handling section at the end of section 4 of v-03.


Issue-3: Security Section, Please enhance the security section
Security section should refer to security section in
[draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi]. It is important to reference:

a) operates in trusted environment (as draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi)
b) Operators must a NRP-ID for one or more SR Policy is a critical piece of
information about critical infrastructure. Care must be take
with distribution of information.

[Yao] Enhanced the security consideration as suggested.

Issue-4 Section 4, Scalability Considerations.
Old text:/ When BGP is
used for distributing SR Policy candidate paths, the amount of
control plane information exchanged between the network controller
and the headend nodes would also increase. This increases comes in
routes (BGP NLRI and BGP attribute combinations). /

Both the NLRI growth and the attribute growth should be flagged in the text.

[Yao] Maybe I didn't totally get this issue, since the old text referred in it doesn't exit in this document. Do you mean that scalability Considerations for ELP sub-TLV should be added since it increases the the size of control plane information exchanged between the network controller and the headend nodes ? I've added some text in section 4. 


implementations: H3C and ZTE (2 implementations)
[Yao] No implementation has been announced yet.





Original


From: SusanHares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: idr@ietf.org <idr@ietf.org>;
Date: 2025年03月21日 10:36
Subject: [Idr] Shepherd review for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-02 

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list -- idr@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to idr-leave@ietf.org
 


 Type: Proposed Standard
 status: WG Draft
 adopted: 8/12/2024 (7/12/2024 - 7/30/2024)
 current version: 02
 Early Allocation: yes, but need to revised draft prior to allocation 
 implementations: H3C and ZTE (2 implementations)
 bgp-ls draft: none
Reviewer: Susan Hares 
 
Review of -02 
draft: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-02
 Status: Need to address technicval issues
Technical issues
 
All Technical Issue from -01 review are unresolved
Unresolved from Review-01:

Issue #1 - Section 3, paragraph starting "For example". BGP-LS reference - is unresolved

Issue #2 - Section 4 or 5, Missing Error handling for a malformed Explicit NULL Policy TLV

Issue #3 - Security Section, Please enhance the security section. Mention Critical information.

Issue #4 - Missing Scalability considerations for this work.


 
Link to review on IDR wiki
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/Shepherd-SR-BGP-LS/BGP-SR/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-mpls-elp
 
Cheerily, Sue Hares

[Idr] Shepherd review for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srmp… Susan Hares
[Idr] Re: Shepherd review for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-… liu.yao71