Re: [Idr] IPR call for draft-ietf-idr-rpd-11.txt (7/23 to 8/6/2021)

[Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>]

OK, I support its publication.  

The answer to the questions from the Chairs are the followings:

 

Please consider in your review of this draft: 

1)      if this draft is ready for deployment

[WAJ] Yes.

2)      if the BGP extensions for routing policy distribution Help
deployments of BGP in the Internet. 

[WAJ] I think rpd can help the deployment of routing policy via BGP
protocol.

 

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

From: Huaimo Chen <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2021 1:03 PM
To: Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>; 'Susan Hares' <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] IPR call for draft-ietf-idr-rpd-11.txt (7/23 to 8/6/2021)

 

Hi Aijun,

 

    Thank you very much for your comments. 

 

    My responses are inline below with [HC].

 

Best Regards,

Huaimo

 

  _____  

From: Idr <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > on behalf of
Aijun Wang <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 5:18 AM
To: 'Susan Hares' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; [e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]>  <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: Re: [Idr] IPR call for draft-ietf-idr-rpd-11.txt (7/23 to 8/6/2021)


 

Hi, All:

 

I think there are some points should be addressed before it publication:

1)     Will the draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-05
<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatrack
er.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-05%23page-12&
data=04%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cb67d9b53c2244e6381a008d951a8afe
8%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637630607226848366%7CUnknown%
7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn
0%3D%7C1000&sdata=5ZpdHDve2j0dLW%2BkW90OyEwNfluQT3D7wXqXnZrHL5M%3D&reserved=
0> [Wide Community], which is one of normative reference documents for the
draft-ietf-idr-rpd-11.txt, be forwarded later? I think the [Wide Community]
document will influence the final publication of this draft.  If [Wide
Community] will not be forwarded, would it better to define its own
container for the attached attributes sub-TLV?

[HC]: Wide Community is very powerful. It will eventually

become a RFC. In addition to this document, there are other

working group documents that use Wide Community. The authors

of the Wide Community document also work on it.

2)     Should the "RouteAttr" described in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-rpd#section-4.2.1
<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatrack
er.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-rpd%23section-4.2.1&data=04%7C01%7
Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cb67d9b53c2244e6381a008d951a8afe8%7C0fee8ff2a3
b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637630607226848366%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8
eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sd
ata=aSFPm1btQgvbCHdsGJumAMCsL6ohrM1u9ZNU%2Fa9bLg0%3D&reserved=0>  be Sub-TLV
of Target TLV, and other associated Sub-TLV be sub-sub TLV?

[HC]: We have changed "TLV/Sub-TLV" to "Sub-TLV" and rephrased the related
text accordingly.

3)     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-rpd#section-9.2
<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatrack
er.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-rpd%23section-9.2&data=04%7C01%7Ch
uaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cb67d9b53c2244e6381a008d951a8afe8%7C0fee8ff2a3b2
40189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637630607226858324%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8ey
JWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdat
a=jtCxWAlBaUGtAwowgUTEmLLnlCLkUAIQwshtgoD9vkk%3D&reserved=0>  describes the
"Routing Policy Type" registry, is it necessary? 

In https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-rpd#section-4.1
<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatrack
er.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-rpd%23section-4.1&data=04%7C01%7Ch
uaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cb67d9b53c2244e6381a008d951a8afe8%7C0fee8ff2a3b2
40189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637630607226858324%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8ey
JWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdat
a=IDMdeBVRm4koo3Bwlo3c8N2bMxk0qcc8hPh34y5KJj8%3D&reserved=0> , it describes:

"Policy Type:  1 octet indicates the type of a policy.  1 is for Export
policy. 2 is for Import policy.  If the Policy Type is any other value, the
NLRI is corrupt and the enclosing UPDATE message MUST be ignored."  

Is this the place to use the "Routing Policy Type"? If so, it is
unreasonable to use other values as required by the IANA considerations.

[HC]: You are right. There is no other policy type except

for export and import. The "Routing Policy Type" registry 

is not needed. We have removed it.

4)     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-rpd#section-9.5
<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatrack
er.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-rpd%23section-9.5&data=04%7C01%7Ch
uaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cb67d9b53c2244e6381a008d951a8afe8%7C0fee8ff2a3b2
40189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637630607226868271%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8ey
JWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdat
a=0wvPK%2BNvk7V8UsowNyKqFNAton5b9aYO5dB9rl%2FnGgo%3D&reserved=0>  is named
as "Attribute Change Sub-TLV" Registry, should it be "Parameter TLV" as
indicated in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-rpd#section-4.2.2
<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatrack
er.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-rpd%23section-4.2.2&data=04%7C01%7
Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cb67d9b53c2244e6381a008d951a8afe8%7C0fee8ff2a3
b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637630607226868271%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8
eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sd
ata=xqOrDBG3UWbMvzJmSKPSNnee%2Bn1pNbBJclM7kHXmazw%3D&reserved=0> 

[HC]: The "Attribute Change Sub-TLV" is within the "Parameter TLV".

 

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

 

 

 

 

From: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > On Behalf Of Susan
Hares
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2021 1:23 AM
To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
Subject: [Idr] IPR call for draft-ietf-idr-rpd-11.txt (7/23 to 8/6/2021)

 

This begins a 2 week WG last call on draft-ietf-idr-rpd-11.txt. 

 

There is one missing IPR statement from Liang Ou. 

Liang should send the IPR statements in response to this WG LC.  

 

The implementation report is at: 

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-rpd%20impolementations%20
<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftrac.ietf
.org%2Ftrac%2Fidr%2Fwiki%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-rpd%2520impolementations%2520&data
=04%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Cb67d9b53c2244e6381a008d951a8afe8%7C
0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637630607226868271%7CUnknown%7CTW
FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D
%7C1000&sdata=ITkstVwx5lYqsyihPPr5S13Z81Qk0tvV5ypcRSPTTNE%3D&reserved=0>   

 

The two implementations are different implementations from Huawei. 

 

This document describes BGP Extensions for Routing

   Policy Distribution (BGP RPD) to support this.

 

Please consider in your review of this draft: 

1) if this draft is ready for deployment, 

2) if the BGP extensions for routing policy distribution 

Help deployments of BGP in the Internet. 

 

Cheerily, Susan Hares