Re: [Idr] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

Implementation report has been updated to show two implementations.

   Les


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2018 12:07 PM
> To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp
> 
> I have uploaded V12 of the document which addresses the Editorial issue (#1
> below).
> 
> I have also uploaded an implementation report - currently specifying the one
> known implementation.
> 
>    Les
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2018 11:49 PM
> > To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp
> >
> > Sue -
> >
> > Thanx for the review.
> > Responses inline.
> >
> > From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2018 12:29 PM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>;
> > draft-ietf-idr-te-pm- [e-mail]
> > Subject: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp
> >
> > Les, Stefano, Qin, Jeff, and Clarence:
> >
> > This document is generally in excellent shape.   I note the following four
> > things need to be fixed prior to submitting this to Alvaro Retana:
> >
> >
> > 1)      Editorial:
> > Page 3 states "Unidirectional Packet Loss", but section 3.4 says
> > "Unidirectional Link Loss TLV"
> >
> > Please fix this editorial error.  It is a requirement for sending to
> > the IESG for publication
> >
> > [Les:] I have changed these all to be "Link Loss' - consistent with RFC 7810.
> >
> >
> > 2)      Security Section - Consider whether you want to add additional
> > comments in your security section about the distribution of IGP TE
> > information in BGP.   Even if the node inputted the data into BGP-LS has
> the
> > appropriate permissions, BGP blindly sends this to the entire BGP
> > infrastructure supporting BGP-LS guided only by policy set on nodes.
> > Is this what you want?
> >
> > If so, I will forward this to the security directorate for their review.
> >
> >
> >
> > [Les:] I am having some trouble understanding the motivation for your
> > comment.
> >
> > IGP TE information has been distributed via BGP-LS since RFC 7752. Why
> > do you believe that the addition of the IGP TE information defined
> > here requires additional security comments?
> >
> >
> >
> > 3)      We do not have any implementations reported.
> >
> > Please put the existence of the implementation on the BGP Wiki - under
> > implementation reports.
> >
> > [Les:] I have an implementation report for one Cisco implementation
> > which I will post shortly. A second Cisco implementation is currently in
> progress