Re: [Idr] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-17: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <> Wed, 06 May 2020 21:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D65913A00C4; Wed, 6 May 2020 14:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HQSVS11r7BOF; Wed, 6 May 2020 14:33:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04B643A00B2; Wed, 6 May 2020 14:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 046LXRVN006839 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 6 May 2020 17:33:29 -0400
Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 14:33:27 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <>
To: Alvaro Retana <>
Cc: Jeff Tantsura <>, Susan Hares <>,,, The IESG <>,
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <7534cbdd-a370-4d40-b49e-a30158d46a44@Spark> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-17: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 21:33:35 -0000

On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 02:22:45PM -0700, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> On May 6, 2020 at 1:56:07 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> Ben:
> Hi!
> ...
> > It sounds like you are intending this to work the way that I was hoping it
> > would work, which is reassuring. That said (and this relates to a later
> > comment as well), I think we may want to double-check the wording in one
> > spot: in Section 3 we define the "Node MSD is the smallest MSD supported by
> > the node on the set of interfaces configured for use." This definition
> > seems to disallow advertising a Node MSD that is larger than any specific
> > Link MSD for that node. My question here was about whether a receiving
> > node was expected to enforce this (surprising) aspect of the definition.
> > If, instead, the definition should be changed to say only that the Node MSD
> > is the MSD to be used for interfaces on this node in the absence of an
> > interface-specific value, then there is no longer any enforcement needed.
> §5 does say this: "When Link MSD is present for a given MSD-type, the
> value of the Link MSD MUST take precedence over the Node MSD."
> Is that what you're looking for.

That's what I expect, yes.
But right now the document seems to be inconsistent, as the Node MSD is
claimed to be "the smallest MSD supported" but can be other values.

> Keep in mind that the expectation of BGP-LS is to simply transport
> information; the rules around that information and how the consumer
> should process it come form the IGP documents.  IOW, in this case
> we're bound by what those published documents already say (see RFC8491
> and RFC8476).

So the published documents are also inconsistent?

It still looks like we are defining usage of a field that contradicts what
that field is defined to carry.  I am not sure whether the contradiction is
across documents, within multiple documents, or only within this current

If we're locked into the already-defined semantics that's fine (albeit
unfortunate), but we shouldn't then claim that it's allowed to violate the
already-defined semantics.