Re: [Idr] 1 Week last call on changes to: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-17.txt [3/25/2021 to 4/1/2021]

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 07 April 2021 20:21 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 13D443A2828; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 13:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.085
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.085 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, 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 IeqbJxk9GNbl; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 13:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x633.google.com (mail-ej1-x633.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::633]) (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 94BEE3A2827; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 13:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x633.google.com with SMTP id a25so6742910ejk.0; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 13:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
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=0C64n8rJssSNAiP1VeV0zV+3vSXeoTfqFfln4zvFPqg=; b=Yf/FO3TwJqZVOxlidcCOiFNoqgwxYANdFbz0RfksahBcy+HG86KUAyYQuBGVXYx9qZ mz+ykOVrg0n7rmTj9mjAc6Vi9Z4oXhU1fEzLQnXWThZj1jlJ58cOpNdLDdctxqnn0atl 1iQHp7fQrzEOyHXaTms1QCQtTOOVCtYnYcPDRaM76PcwhdUpGgquml2Cdt997otVex+j rKR4z3i0umRD9kr2TG+vdIOYYTQavFTaxyf+IQYrnrlzhZp6VYDAhzQjgygfo4Eg/2i3 xIarj/izeza9CmkVE4ry90GpxmdBY3wnNb0hMVMQkkdg2vQzoUl0qTsu/L0WnkT9EZhZ CQJA==
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=0C64n8rJssSNAiP1VeV0zV+3vSXeoTfqFfln4zvFPqg=; b=OGAFzlFxBe6xIrU5d9oxDGBlRAhNQ81ep7k1pv3w7ME/eDfKSusV+/e9KnMMkrc9/O 8/WUSdPEUMW4gMLQ+Oyk6Kgl0eKbTz+w/ZHTxz3RzzHYF3n8T2/soM1eV2dPsxbq8cQM bgMSigX7YxkQ/MxEyHxKrzrtrCzBGXVdc8vM1g0/6pBQrTWG3xmYbG1rPf9vdkTorhCI o+v6NKyotGe9CUK4QclDckwfSbKZORRmtG+Dz1qjeNSzHvWsinwYnwCnBgu8B6EFpUQe c6qTlbPwo6ob0sgIkrBqsXB/fQqZTkRQTyC5H26lKv3tG6tlk4tDzK4lyX5H1s672SC2 jKnQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532HsE87IxTPqUo6ghuXmvlmpC+U8/exayEMGJXUUc/h0LwuQF5o 67Ff15+Qjg4Z26FLqV4eseU43HKvA8ozbPbkX1Y=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyRuzzuIBxR3Lv2RlLYDReAV9JtEBhUldCbXZm4hOkgcFbpXsbDBKM2NuCw3hzPPgD6jdSFtRJKCa3jc5cMiY4=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:2759:: with SMTP id a25mr6010258ejd.122.1617826863293; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 13:21:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 13:21:02 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <MW3PR11MB4570EAD9019E0D25EDCC962CC1759@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <010e01d72184$4dd84de0$e988e9a0$@ndzh.com> <MW3PR11MB45704C74F8391FC7172B01F5C1769@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <BY5PR11MB433720FDB48ADC7B17214C11C1769@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMESsx4ujt5dox+PjPOOLn2vGgEnMn_aVp6vD3p0WxD3=Nrvg@mail.gmail.com> <MW3PR11MB4570E9F3389CCFBA80D403F7C1769@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <BY5PR11MB433765E58C7EAF51F1A8F9F2C1769@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <MW3PR11MB4570EAD9019E0D25EDCC962CC1759@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 13:21:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMMESsyv3dYS=JfEfO4RUEHxSgA2Ne8pGD+P=bT_Qd_FxpNpLA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007ea8fd05bf67ab35"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/EmV5o4ne5TlCRNf3tA7OaeQlROs>
Subject: Re: [Idr] 1 Week last call on changes to: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-17.txt [3/25/2021 to 4/1/2021]
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 20:21:12 -0000

I’m fine with Les’ text.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On April 7, 2021 at 1:28:52 AM, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) (ketant@cisco.com)
wrote:

Hi Les,



Thanks for your confirmation and your proposed text looks better as well.



Let us also wait to hear feedback from Alvaro, IDR chairs and others in the
WG.



Thanks,

Ketan



*From:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>
*Sent:* 07 April 2021 01:05
*To:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>om>; Alvaro Retana <
aretana.ietf@gmail.com>gt;; Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>om>; idr@ietf.org
*Cc:* draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext@ietf.org
*Subject:* RE: [Idr] 1 Week last call on changes to:
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-17.txt [3/25/2021 to 4/1/2021]



Ketan/Alvaro –



Looking at this again, I can see why some text is necessary.

Here is an alternate suggestion:



         IS-IS flags correspond to the IPv4/IPv6 Extended Reachability

         Attribute Flags defined in section 2.1 of [RFC7794].  In the case

         of the X-flag when associated with IPv6 prefix reachability the

         setting corresponds to the setting of the X-flag in the fixed
format of

         IS-IS TLVs 236 [RFC5308] and 237 [RFC5120].



I believe this deserves to be more than a “Note” because RFC 7794 requires
X-flag in Prefix Reachability sub-TLV in such cases to be sent as 0 and
ignored on receipt – which means you cannot derive the X-flag from Prefix
Attributes sub-TLV, but you still want to use the bit position of the
X-flag in Prefix Attributes sub-TLV for the value derived from the IPv6
Prefix Reachability TLVs.



   Les







*From:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>
*Sent:* Tuesday, April 06, 2021 10:51 AM
*To:* Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>om>; Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>om>;
Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>om>; idr@ietf.org
*Cc:* draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext@ietf.org
*Subject:* RE: [Idr] 1 Week last call on changes to:
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-17.txt [3/25/2021 to 4/1/2021]



Hi Alvaro/Les,



The RFC7794 covers the ISIS protocol handling of the X-flag from
either the IPv4/IPv6
Extended Reachability Attribute Flags sub-TLV or from the fixed form TLVs
236 & 237.



The BGP-LS draft currently says that the contents of the BGP-LS Prefix
Attribute Flags TLV is derived from the IPv4/IPv6 Extended Reachability
Attribute Flags sub-TLV in case of ISIS. It does not cover this “special”
handling that is required for the X-flag in TLV 236/237 and populating that
info into BGP-LS. This is the clarification that I was referring to and I
did not see that as a duplication.



I am OK in skipping this text update if you still believe it to be
unnecessary.



Thanks,

Ketan





*From:* Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
*Sent:* 06 April 2021 23:07
*To:* Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>om>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <
ginsberg@cisco.com>gt;; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>om>;
idr@ietf.org
*Cc:* draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext@ietf.org
*Subject:* Re: [Idr] 1 Week last call on changes to:
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-17.txt [3/25/2021 to 4/1/2021]



Les:



Hi!



The text is not normative…but I do see your point about duplication.  I’m
fine with not adding the note.



Thanks!



Alvaro.



On April 6, 2021 at 1:32:49 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) (
ginsberg=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org) wrote:

Ketan –



I always prefer NOT to duplicate normative statements found in referenced
documents as there are only two possibilities – neither of which is useful:



1)You will get it right – in which case the text will be redundant

2)You will get it wrong – in which case the text will introduce ambiguity



You have referenced RFC 7794 – I think that should be all that is required.

No change please.



   Les





*From:* Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
*Sent:* Tuesday, April 06, 2021 9:09 AM
*To:* Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>om>; idr@ietf.org
*Cc:* draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext@ietf.org
*Subject:* Re: [Idr] 1 Week last call on changes to:
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-17.txt [3/25/2021 to 4/1/2021]



Hello All,



A minor point (IMHO worth clarification) related to this
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext has come to my notice out of the
ongoing AD-review and discussion [1] for the
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions.



This is related to the Prefix Attribute Flags TLV :
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-17#section-2.3.2



Currently the draft says that for IS-IS they are derived from the IPv4/IPv6
Extended Reachability Attribute Flags sub-TLV as specified in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7794#section-2.1



What we missed (though it is described in RFC7794 sec 2.1), is that for the
X-flag, the value needs to be picked from the IS-IS TLVs 236 and 237.



The proposed changes are in sec 2.3.2 as follows:



<OLD/>

      *  IS-IS flags correspond to the IPv4/IPv6 Extended Reachability

         Attribute Flags defined in section 2.1 of [RFC7794]
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7794#section-2.1>

</OLD>



<NEW/>

      *  IS-IS flags correspond to the IPv4/IPv6 Extended Reachability

         Attribute Flags defined in section 2.1 of [RFC7794]. *Note: for*

*         the prefix reachability advertisement via IS-IS TLVs 236*

*         [RFC5308] and 237 [RFC5120], the value of the X-flag to be set*

*         in the BGP-LS TLV is determined from the fixed format of those*

*         IS-IS TLVs instead of the IS-IS IPv4/IPv6 Extended Reachability*

*         Attributes Flags sub-TLV.*

</NEW>



I wanted to check with WG/chairs/AD if this is something that we ought to
fix/update at this stage in the draft.



Thanks,

Ketan



[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/HAtgICjP4qB23LKfbyZQigDeQSo/





-----Original Message-----
From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: 25 March 2021 20:07
To: idr@ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] 1 Week last call on changes to:
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-17.txt [3/25/2021 to 4/1/2021]



IDR:



This is a 1 Week WG call for comments the changes to
draft-ietf-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-17.txt.



https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-17



The comments on this document are only for the changes from -16 to -17.txt



Ketan summarized the changes in his early message with



"This update to the BGP-LS SR draft (that was sitting in the RFC-editor Q
due to misref) was required to the recent changes in the

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator-

09 that was the missing reference as part of the AD review.



It updates the references to the Source Router Identifier TLV for OSPF and
introduces a new TLV for the Source OSPF Router-ID TLV to cover the new TLV
introduced by draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-originator."



It is a fine summary of the changes.



Please send comments if you are concerned about the changes.



Unless comments are heard, the intent is to allow the RFC editor to publish
based on the -17.txt version.



Cheers, Susan Hares





_______________________________________________

Idr mailing list

Idr@ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr