[Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt - WG consensus pending

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Wed, 07 August 2019 17:23 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 7B5F1120730; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 10:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 EVVCUkP8drWP; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 10:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-100-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.100]) (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 96D66120690; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 10:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=97.112.26.170;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: "'IDR'" <idr@ietf.org>
Cc: <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 13:23:38 -0400
Message-ID: <01d601d54d44$da468ff0$8ed3afd0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01D7_01D54D23.53364F80"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AdVNQg8h1R/9RzbbQNWIOPyzclLjdQ==
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 190807-0, 08/07/2019), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/MUfDI1JgBIW6zO46DHQx7O3tLyg>
Subject: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt - WG consensus pending
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 Aug 2019 17:23:50 -0000

The WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt concludes on
8/8/2019.

 

At this point, we have about 12 people who have participated in this last
call by making comments.   All comments regarding publication appear to be
positive.   If you wish to make additional comments, please make your
comments by 8/8/2019. 

 

The implementations come from a single vendor (cisco).  A 1 week query will
be made (starting on 8/8/2019)  to determine if the WG will accept 2
implementations from the same vendor to meet IDR requirement for 2
implementations.  

 

The authors of this draft (Jeff,  Uma, Ketan, Greg, Nikos) need to do the
following: 

1)      Post an -06.txt  revision that addresses any comments received at
IETF 105 or on the WG list, 

2)      Upgrade the interoperability report at 

 
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ms
d%20implementations

 

With details on the following MUST Clause support 

 

Reference are:  section 3  

 

      *  MSD-Value : a number in the range of 0-255.  For all MSD-Types,

         0 represents the lack of ability to impose an MSD stack of any

         depth; any other value represents that of the node.  This value

         MUST represent the lowest value supported by any link

         configured for use by the advertising protocol instance.] 



Reference in section 4: - a similar definition 



      *  MSD-Value : a number in the range of 0-255.  For all MSD-Types,
         0 represents the lack of ability to impose an MSD stack of any
         depth; any other value represents that of the link when used as
         an outgoing interface.] 

 

 

Expected addition to Wiki document is the following information

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Support for zero MSD-value:   

    Node MSD TLV:  yes/no

    Link MSD TLV: yes/no

 

Mechanism for reporting zero-value: 

      

Error handling of MSD TLV  (according to RFC7752):    

  Node MSD TLV:  yes/no 

  Link MSD TLV :    yes /no 

 

 

Mechanism for reporting errors on MSD TLV:  (log error in log file)