Re: [Idr] 2nd WG LC for CT drafts - which includes draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6, and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-01 (2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024).

[Antoni Przygienda <[e-mail]>]

So to make it absolutely, perfectly, crystal clear what I mean by “abstain” on the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6, I have _no_ issue, nothing whatsoever, nada with the draft and its encoding per se, I _abstain_ from having an opinion on it since I think that given the current SRv6 security discussion and situation it’s premature to advance anything relying on SRv6 to anything close to a standards document until the security model/concerns/architecture are clarified.

And again, I strongly support draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct for its clean architecture and practical relevance proven by existing deployements. This draft is _not_ transport specific and hence not dependent in any way on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 AFAIS so bunching three drafts that are utterly different into a single WG LC and making somehow them inter-dependent seems to me confusing at best …


  *   tony



Juniper Business Use Only

From: Antoni Przygienda <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 27 February 2024 at 20:22
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] 2nd WG LC for CT drafts - which includes draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6, and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-01 (2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024).
Sue, I read the drafts again

I support strongly draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, I gave my reasons in original LC already

draft ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr is a possible solution for the problem (generating necessary operational evil) but I consider it an orthogonal discussion to -ct the way it’s written now AFAIS so abstain from an opinion here 😉

I abstain from having an opinion on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 given the current security discussion in IESG around SRv6 drafts

thanks


  *   tony

From: Idr <[e-mail]> on behalf of Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Date: Saturday, 17 February 2024 at 03:55
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Idr] 2nd WG LC for CT drafts - which includes draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6, and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-01 (2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024).
[External Email. Be cautious of content]

This begins a 2-week second WG LC  (2/16/2024 to 3/1/2024)
for the following three drafts (which were created from
the original draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct).

draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-26
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DR8upA4Ln_T_WW8x69zn29jqEmyVgm7vjqBACYgiv3Dz9hwMGZkRuYyNHl1XKKzaSvkDnLBh56bd2J4$>
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6-02
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DR8upA4Ln_T_WW8x69zn29jqEmyVgm7vjqBACYgiv3Dz9hwMGZkRuYyNHl1XKKzaSvkDnLBhwi2zoR8$>

draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-01 (BGP Route Reflector in Forwarding Path)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DR8upA4Ln_T_WW8x69zn29jqEmyVgm7vjqBACYgiv3Dz9hwMGZkRuYyNHl1XKKzaSvkDnLBhVlKh2TY$>

All three drafts have experimental status.

Based on feedback from the IDR chairs, the original
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct draft was broken into 3 drafts.
The draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6-02 has dependencies on the
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-26.

The draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr suggest a solution to
problems related to loops in [RFC4456]  if the RR is in the
forwarding path.

The implementation is listed at:
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DR8upA4Ln_T_WW8x69zn29jqEmyVgm7vjqBACYgiv3Dz9hwMGZkRuYyNHl1XKKzaSvkDnLBhu2QKhpk$>

Procedures
=============
The authors of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-06 should reply to this message with an email
If they know of any IPR related to each of these three drafts.
It is important to explicitly state whether you know about any IPR for each draft.

Please note there are 7 IPRs related to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-26.
No IPR is filed for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6 and
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-01.txt.

If you are confused with the procedure, please send me a note.

Feedback in WG LC
=============
IDR members should consider this 2-week WG LC as 3 WG LC
Operating at the same time.   You may select that 1, 2, or 3
of the drafts is ready to publish.   Please be specific on
which drafts your comments refer to.

Since this is the second WG LC, please comment on any
technical issues or editorial issues relating to the draft.
We will close this second WG LC promptly on 3/1/2024 so the editors
can provide a final draft prior to the IETF Draft deadline on March 4, 2024.


Cheerily, Susan Hares