[Idr] Re: BGP-LS: Shepherd report for draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-metric-03

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

< speaking as WG member and co-author of this document >

There is one more technical thing for the WG to consider.

This document is asking for a new registry to be created for "Metric Types"
-
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-metric-03.html#section-7.2

However, we have a registry for "Metric Types" that was created for BGP-LS
reporting of SR Policies [RFC9857] which is exactly the same thing
semantically even if it was created under BGP-LS registry group -
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml#bgp-ls-sr-policy-metric-type

My suggestion to the WG is that this same registry be also used for this
extension to BGP SR Policy SAFI. If we create a new separate registry, it
would be a complication to keep them in sync.

Thanks,
Ketan


On Sun, Nov 2, 2025 at 9:07 PM Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Missed two things in my earlier shepherd’s report:
>
>
>
> Wiki page with this review is:
>
>
> https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/Shepherd-SR-BGP-LS/BGP-SR/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-metric
>
>
>
> The Wiki page that references Early Allocation status is:
>
> https://wiki.ietf.org/e/en/group/idr/Early-Allocation-Status
>
>
>
> (The Correct name for the registry is: SR Policy Segment List Sub-TLVs).
>
>
>
> github page that references this is:
>
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/idr-chairs/blob/main/status.md
>
>
>
>
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>
>
>
> Cheerily, Sue
>
>
>
> *From:* Susan Hares
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:41 PM
> *To:* idr <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* BGP-LS: Shepherd report for draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-metric-03
>
>
>
> *Summary *
>
> draft:  [draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-metric](
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-metric/)
>
> Type: Proposed Standard
>
> status: WG Draft
>
> adopted: [9/1/2024](
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/xUckKQncQ4rLVCCAkBO6bQ6zcuk/)
> (8/1 to 8/30/2024 call)
>
> current version: -03
>
> Early Allocation: 20 [wiki Early
> Allocation](/group/idr/Early-Allocation-Status), needs early allocation
> call.  Call awaits -04 version.
>
> implementations: unknown
>
> bgp-ls draft: none
>
> Next step: release -04 with Technical and editorial issues fixed, and then
> do the Early Allocation call (2 weeks)
>
>
>
> *-03 Review*
>
> draft (-03): [draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-metric-03](
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-metric-03.txt)
>
>
>
> *Technical Issues*
>
> Technical Issue 1 - Do you have the right registry
>
>
>
> Ketan is concerned that you have the right registry at:
>
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-tunnel-encapsulation/bgp-tunnel-encapsulation.xhtml#sr-policy-segment-list-sub-tlvs
>
> Please discuss with Ketan about the correct registry. The registry you
> have specified is at the same level as all segment types.
>
> *Correct name is:* SR Policy Segment List Sub-TLVs
>
>
>
>
>
> Technical Issue 2 - please update to RFC9830
>
>
>
> [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi](
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/13/) is
> now [RFC9830](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9830/).  Please update
> your draft.
>
>
>
> Technical Issue 3 - Update security text in section 8
>
>
>
> The metric for a pathway using SR technology is information critical to a
> network.
>
> Therefore, you must include a warning in the security considerations in
> section 8
>
> to have the operator carefully restrict access to the metric information.
>
>
>
> *Editorial Issues*
>
> Editorial issue 1 - in section 7.2
>
> Please fix the table format for code point 5.
>
>
>
> Cheerily, Sue Hares
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>