[Idr] IANA allocation request for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-01

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

< Changing the subject to highlight the request for IANA allocation >

Hi Sue,

Please let us (authors) know if we can go ahead and request the same with
IANA. Note this is not an early allocation but a normal allocation request
via "Expert Review" procedures.

Thanks,
Ketan

On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 4:55 PM Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Sue,
>
> As indicated during the presentation during IETF 117, the authors would
> like to request allocations for the pending code points for this draft as
> follows:
>
> 1214 (suggested) SR Segment List Identifier
>
> 1215 (suggested) SR Bidirectional Group Constraint
>
> 1216 (suggested) SR Metric Constraint
>
> 1217 (suggested) SR Segment List Bandwidth
>
>
> This will help us start preparation of implementation reports for this
> draft as well.
>
> Also, thanks for your review and please check inline below for responses.
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 4:02 PM Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> This is a shepherd report for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-00.
>>
>>
>>
>> This draft will need to be adjusted after
>> draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy is split into two drafts.
>>
>
> KT> I am not sure that would be necessary. That draft was about BGP SR
> Policy SAFI and this is BGP-LS SAFI - they are different and independent.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Why?: draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy is an informative
>> reference.
>>
>
> KT> There is no normative dependence on the BGP SR Policy SAFI document.
> This BGP-LS draft is about (northbound) advertisement of SR Policies from
> routers (headend) to controllers. The source of the SR Policy on the
> headend could be local configuration (e.g., via CLI, Netconf, etc.) or via
> protocols PCEP or BGP SR Policy SAFI.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Other-things to fix:
>>
>>
>>
>> Section 5.2 –
>>
>>
>>
>> U-flag – specify what the flag means when the bit is zero.
>>
>
> KT> When clear it indicates that this CP is using the specified BSID. This
> flag is ignored when there is no specified BSID. Will include this in the
> next update.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Section 7.0
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for putting RFC7752bis in this document.
>>
>> I recommend you consider adding a bit more text prior to WG LC.
>>
>> Consider issues on rapid change and detection.
>>
>
> KT> Could you please elaborate a bit more on this? There is nothing of the
> nature of "statistics" or "counters" that are being advertised here which
> could change rapidly. This is quite similar to protocol state - albeit
> related to SR Policies.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Section 9.0
>>
>>
>>
>> This section needs upgrading to present the likely problems.
>>
>> At least you should consider what RFC7752bis issues have been closed.
>>
>
> KT> Agree. Will update this section for the next update.
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
>
>>
>>
>> I will add this to the early review queue as soon as the
>> draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy is completed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,  Sue
>>
>