[Idr] BGP-LS Drafts - Getting around a Road Block

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Tue, 29 January 2019 11:31 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.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 9A9571295D8; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 03:31:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.946
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 41xga1dg-b-J; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 03:31:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.97]) (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 2EF1F129508; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 03:31:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=166.176.248.72;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: idr@ietf.org
Cc: 'Alvaro Retana' <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, spring-chairs@ietf.org, lsvr-chairs@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 06:31:07 -0500
Message-ID: <006501d4b7c6$20ff31f0$62fd95d0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0066_01D4B79C.382DE4E0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdS3xiA4dV+zJT9pSAKy5T4/QFZmzQ==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 190129-0, 01/29/2019), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KtVnvgad0-xzY3zMKUL4BDsgcYA>
Subject: [Idr] BGP-LS Drafts - Getting around a Road Block
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: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 11:31:13 -0000

IDR WG Last Calls and adoptions for the following IDR BGP LS related drafts
have hit a road block due two issues: concerns regarding message size and
error handling problems: 

 

WG LCs

.         draft-ietf-bgp-ls-segement-routing-rld-03.txt, 

.         draft-ietf-bgp-ls-segement-routing-md-02.txt , 

.         draft-ietf-bgp-idr-te-lsp-distribution-09.txt 

 

Adoptions: 

.         draft-ketant-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr, 

.         draft-wu-idr-bgp-segement-allocation-ext

.         draft-li-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions

.         draft-ketant-idr-bgp-ls-flex-alo 

 

One solution to the message size issue is to simply standardize
draft-ietf-bgp-extended-message-27.txt with the level of implementation
experience we have at this point.   A WG call for this will start today. 

 

Since the error handling issues are common to BGP-LS, Sue asked Alvaro to
discuss the error handling during December on IDR, SPRING, and LSVR.  On
12/19/2018 Alvaro Retana sent a query regarding error handling for BGP-LS as
he reviewed draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext.    AFAWK (As far as
we know), there was no clear agreement on the problem or potential
solutions.    The chairs will be discussing further work on the error
handling issues with other chairs of groups impacted (BESS, SPRING, LSVR).  

 

.  In order to not slow down any BGP-LS or segment routing drafts, the IDR
WG will "provisionally" complete WG LC and adoptions. 

 

.         For WG LC, provisional means that we will complete all other
facets of the WG LC process and get an early AD review. After IDR at IETF
104, the chairs will suggest changes across all drafts. 

 

.         For WG Adoption, provisional means we will adopt the drafts with
the caveat that the error handling may need to change. 

 

This message is a WG call for comments on this approach to get us past the
BGP-LS draft road block. 

 

Sue Hares and John Scudder