[Idr] Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr-04

Scott Bradner via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 16 February 2021 18:27 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietf.org
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A3DF3A0E7A; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 10:27:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Scott Bradner via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: ops-dir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr.all@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.25.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <161350006711.7893.6985937054830366352@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 10:27:47 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/IvQGDWsXD-S1PFN-dijX0Nqk2FA>
Subject: [Idr] Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr-04
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 16 Feb 2021 18:27:47 -0000

Reviewer: Scott Bradner
Review result: Ready

This is an OPS-DIR review of Application-Specific Attributes Advertisement with
BGP Link-State (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr).

This I-D describes a mechanism to transport application-specific link
attributes in BGP Link State.  This is similar to the mechanisms described in
RFC 8919 for IS-IS and in RFC 8920 for OSPF, both of which this I-D is based on.

The issues I had with draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse (the I-D that was
published as RFC 8920) were resolved during the last call discussion and I do
not find any operational issues with the current I-D.