Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-06.txt

Hi Ketan

In-line

Kind Regards

Gyan

On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 1:40 AM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>
wrote:

> Hi Gyan,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your review and feedback.
>
>
>
> Please check inline below.
>
>
>
> *From:* Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* 07 May 2021 21:36
> *To:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant@cisco.com>
> *Cc:* idr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-06.txt
>
>
>
> Hi Ketan
>
>
>
> Thank you for updating the draft and I do like the more appropriate name
> change from
>
>
>
> “* North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering (TE)*
>
>
>
> Information Using BGP”
>
>
>
>
>
> *To*
>
>
>
> Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering Information Using BGP
>
> *[KT] Can you please clarify why this change would be required or even appropriate. The bis is to fix some issues and clarify some aspects of the original BGP-LS specification. It does not aim to change the purpose of the extensions.*
>
>  Gyan> Agreed.  In the bis update you had the title changed so I was
> commenting on that but now I see you are not changing the title and I agree
> the original title is more appropriate and correct.
>

>
> Few comments.
>
>
>
> In RFC 7752 where does in mention BGP-LS AFI/SAFI?
>
> *[KT]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-06#section-4.2
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-06#section-4.2>*
>
>
>
> I think it should be added if missing.
>
>
>
> Also since the same
>
>
>
> 71
>
> BGP-LS
>
> [RFC7752 <https://www.iana.org/go/rfc7752>]
>
> 72
>
> BGP-LS-VPN
>
>
>
> Also the SR BGP-LS extension uses the same AFI/SAFI above maybe mentioning
> normative reference to the SR BGP-LS extension.
>
> *[KT] That would be backwards. RFC7752 (and this bis document) is the base
> BGP-LS. The SR extensions for BGP-LS has normative reference to the base so
> we cannot make a reverse reference. Please clarify if I am missing
> something here.*
>
> Gyan> I see your point and agree
>
> I think we should add the AFI/SAFI reference to the draft below.
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16
>
>
>
> Also in the abstract mentions Traffic Engineering referring to RSVP TE and
> then in the introduction mentions TEDs.  As referring to TE could mean
> RSVP-TE or SR maybe in the abstract state RSVP-TE as this specification is
> strictly for RSVP-TE.
>
> *[KT] I am not sure if that is necessary. The specification is about
> providing IGP topology database – it does not provide only the subset that
> is used by RSVP-TE. Also, the specification does not go into the protocol
> extensions for signaling of the TE paths.*
>
> * Gyan> Understood.  As this is the base specification which includes the
> BGP-LS extension for IGP topology and TEDS to rebuild TE network graph for
> PCE SBI path instantiation,  the BGP-LS  AFI SAFI base protocol  function
> can also be used for any other extension as well such as SR, BIER, Enhanced
> VPN and future extensions.  To your point maybe adding verbiage that this
> base specification can be used for any future use cases that don’t
> necessarily have to be related to traffic engineering path steering use
> cases  and  can be literally any use case.  That does make BGP-LS a very
> powerful tool for developers to design other possibilities for BGP-LS as
> the base specification allows it.*
>
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bier-bgp-ls-bier-ext-09

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-drake-bess-enhanced-vpn-06

*Thanks,*
>
> *Ketan *
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
>
>
>
>
> Gyan
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 1:38 AM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant=
> 40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> This is mostly a refresh that also includes fixes for editorial nits in
> addition to the following changes related to the IANA considerations:
>
> 1) Includes updated text from draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry for the DE
> Guidance
> 2) Changes the policy from Specifications Required to RFC Required for
> some of the flags registries that were missed by RFC7752
> 3) Removes the column for "ISIS TLV/Sub-TLV" from the IANA registry table
> for BGP-LS TLVs/Sub-TLVs since only a subset of them have equivalent ISIS
> encodings
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Sent: 03 May 2021 11:04
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Cc: idr@ietf.org
> Subject: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-06.txt
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Inter-Domain Routing WG of the IETF.
>
>         Title           : Distribution of Link-State and Traffic
> Engineering Information Using BGP
>         Author          : Ketan Talaulikar
>         Filename        : draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-06.txt
>         Pages           : 63
>         Date            : 2021-05-02
>
> Abstract:
>    In a number of environments, a component external to a network is
>    called upon to perform computations based on the network topology and
>    the current state of the connections within the network, including
>    Traffic Engineering (TE) information.  This is information typically
>    distributed by IGP routing protocols within the network.
>
>    This document describes a mechanism by which link-state and TE
>    information can be collected from networks and shared with external
>    components using the BGP routing protocol.  This is achieved using a
>    new BGP Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) encoding
>    format.  The mechanism is applicable to physical and virtual IGP
>    links.  The mechanism described is subject to policy control.
>
>    Applications of this technique include Application-Layer Traffic
>    Optimization (ALTO) servers and Path Computation Elements (PCEs).
>
>    This document obsoletes RFC 7752 by completely replacing that
>    document.  It makes some small changes and clarifications to the
>    previous specification.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis/
>
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-06
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-06
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-06
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
> --
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
> *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*

*M 301 502-1347*