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

[Susan Hares <[e-mail]>]

Ketan:

You can go ahead with this allocation request to IANA.

The experts now have the relevant information in WG drafts and WG adoptions.

Thanks for waiting,
Sue

From: Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 1:10 AM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; idr-chairs <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: IANA allocation request for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-01

< 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
External ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
  Report This Email<https://protection.inkyphishfence.com/report?id=bmV0b3JnMTA1ODY5MTIvc2hhcmVzQG5kemguY29tL2MyNWQwNDJmNTMwODM1ZTFiYTc3NWNiN2U4ZWUxZWY5LzE2OTU3OTE0MjQuNzI=#key=1daf4d8c3f9abc26e3ea5b5601005f76>  FAQ<https://www.godaddy.com/help/report-email-with-advanced-email-security-40813>  GoDaddy Advanced Email Security, Powered by INKY<https://www.inky.com/protection-by-inky>

< 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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