Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00 and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02 (2/15/2024 to 2/29/2024) - Extended 1 week to 3/7/2024

[Boris Hassanov <[e-mail]>]

 Hi Sue and all,
Being a bit late, but I anyway - I read both docs and support the publication. The 1st document will align the support for the other segments types, the 2nd one shows how much we already did including the implementations.I also support the latest variant about I-flag from Ketan.
>From the practical side (my implementation experience) I would also add to Section 5, something like this:
The feedback from SRPM about a state  of received and verified SR Policy MAY be provided via  draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy or by some others, external or future defined means.

SY,Boris


    On Saturday, March 2, 2024 at 03:26:59 PM GMT+3, Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:  
 
 

This call is extended 1 week to 3/7/2024 to allow others to comment on this call.
 
  
 
Cheerily,
 
  
 
  
 
Greetings IDR:
 
  
 
This begins a 2-week WG LC on the following two drafts created from the text in
 
draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18 - that the IDR WG approved for publication:
 
  
 
  
 
  *   draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00  (proposed standard)
 
  
 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/
 
  
 
  *   draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02 (experimental)
 
  
 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext/
 
  
 
The Authors (per IETF policy) are asked to respond to this message with a
 
message indicating whether they know of any undisclosed IPR as the documents stand now.
 
Please note there are 3 IPR declarations on these drafts.
 
  
 
History:
 
======
 
After reviewing draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18, Andrew Alston (IDR RTG AD)
 
asked that draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy be split into two parts because
 
some segment types (C-L) did not have two implementations.
 
Therefore, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srsegtypes-ext-02 contains the text for
 
Segment types C-L.   This split has been discussed at IETF meetings.
 
  
 
Since Andrew Alston had personally implemented this draft,
 
he also asked for additional reviews on procedures.
 
  
 
During this review, the procedures regarding the link to RFC9012 were improved.
 
  
 
Issues in call:
 
============
 
During the WG should note that the procedures specified in
 
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00 do the following:
 
  
 
  
 
  1.  Only apply to the SR Policy Tunnel (15) + SR Policy SAFI
 
  2.  Do not require any of the TLVs defined in RFC9012 for other tunnel types
 
  3.  May ignore TLVs defined in RFC9012 for other tunnel types
 
  4.  Do not use the validation process in RFC9012, and depend on the SRPM to validate content.
 
  5.  Makes changes to Color Extended Community [RFC9012] to add to 2-bits [C, O]

  
 
To support "color-only" (CO)  functions of section 8.8 of [RFC9256]
 
  
 
  
 
C0 - type 0 (00) - Specific end-point match (Match endpoint that is BGP NH)
 
         type 1 (01) - Specific or null end-point match (BGP NH or null (default gw))
 
         type 2 (10) - Specific, null, or any end-point match (BGP NH, Null, or any endpoint)
 
         type 3 (11) - Reserved
 
  
 
The SR Policy Tunnel functions in this draft use BGP as a transport mechanism for the
 
Information contained in the SR Policy.
 
  
 
Please note that these procedures split the context validation away from the
 
BGP module into the SRPM module.   This split is similar to the BGP-LS split
 
syntax validation from context validation.
 
  
 
There are multiple implementations of this technology as detailed at:
 
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/BGP-Implementation-report/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-implement
 
  
 
The WG members are asked to confirm their agreement to the changes made in this document.
 
  
 
If there are questions, please ask them on this mail thread.  Please note any errors in the call are mine (and not the authors).
 
  
 
Cheerily, Sue
 
  
 
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr