Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00 and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02 (2/15/2024 to 2/29/2024) - Extended 1 week to 3/7/2024

[[e-mail]]

Hi,

I support the publication of  these two important drafts for segment routing.

Cheers,
Yao



Original


From: SusanHares <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
Date: 2024年03月14日 00:37
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00 and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02 (2/15/2024 to 2/29/2024) - Extended 1 week to 3/7/2024

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

 

IDR WG: 
 
I’m going to hold this WG LC for open until 3/18 (early am) to see if we get any responses.
 
Cheerily, Sue 
 


From: Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]> 
 Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 10:38 AM
 To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
 Cc: [e-mail]
 Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00 and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02 (2/15/2024 to 2/29/2024) - Extended 1 week to 3/7/2024



 

 

Hi All,


 

I've received an offline comment from someone that is not subscribed to the IDR list on one of the documents related to the need of a clarification.


 

The following is a proposal for the text change for the I flag in https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-01.html#section-2.4.2 (as also 2.4.3):



 
OLD:
I-Flag: This flag encodes the "Drop Upon Invalid" behavior. It is used by SRPM as described in section 8.2 in [RFC9256].
 
NEW:
I-Flag: This flag encodes the "Drop Upon Invalid" behavior. It is used by SRPM as described in section 8.2 in [RFC9256]. The flag indicates that the CP is to perform the "drop upon invalid" behavior when no valid CP is available for this SR Policy. In this situation, the CP with the highest preference amongst those with the "drop upon invalid" config is made active to drop traffic steered over the SR Policy.
 



Request the WG members to please review the same. If there are no objections, I would incorporate this in the next version that is due when the draft submission tool re-opens.


 

Thanks,



Ketan


 

On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 5:56 PM Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:



This call is extended 1 week to 3/7/2024 to allow others to comment on this call. 
 
Cheerily, 
 
 
Greetings IDR:
 
This begins a 2-week WG LC on the following two drafts created from the text in
draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18 - that the IDR WG approved for publication:
 
 
  *   draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00  (proposed standard)
 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/
 
  *   draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02 (experimental)
 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext/
 
The Authors (per IETF policy) are asked to respond to this message with a
message indicating whether they know of any undisclosed IPR as the documents stand now.
Please note there are 3 IPR declarations on these drafts.
 
History:
======
After reviewing draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18, Andrew Alston (IDR RTG AD)
asked that draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy be split into two parts because
some segment types (C-L) did not have two implementations.
Therefore, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srsegtypes-ext-02 contains the text for
Segment types C-L.   This split has been discussed at IETF meetings.
 
Since Andrew Alston had personally implemented this draft,
he also asked for additional reviews on procedures.
 
During this review, the procedures regarding the link to RFC9012 were improved.
 
Issues in call:
============
During the WG should note that the procedures specified in
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00 do the following:
 
 
  1.  Only apply to the SR Policy Tunnel (15) + SR Policy SAFI
  2.  Do not require any of the TLVs defined in RFC9012 for other tunnel types
  3.  May ignore TLVs defined in RFC9012 for other tunnel types
  4.  Do not use the validation process in RFC9012, and depend on the SRPM to validate content.
  5.  Makes changes to Color Extended Community [RFC9012] to add to 2-bits [C, O]
 
To support "color-only" (CO)  functions of section 8.8 of [RFC9256]
 
 
C0 - type 0 (00) - Specific end-point match (Match endpoint that is BGP NH)
         type 1 (01) - Specific or null end-point match (BGP NH or null (default gw))
         type 2 (10) - Specific, null, or any end-point match (BGP NH, Null, or any endpoint)
         type 3 (11) - Reserved
 
The SR Policy Tunnel functions in this draft use BGP as a transport mechanism for the
Information contained in the SR Policy.
 
Please note that these procedures split the context validation away from the
BGP module into the SRPM module.   This split is similar to the BGP-LS split
syntax validation from context validation.
 
There are multiple implementations of this technology as detailed at:
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/BGP-Implementation-report/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-implement
 
The WG members are asked to confirm their agreement to the changes made in this document.
 
If there are questions, please ask them on this mail thread.  Please note any errors in the call are mine (and not the authors).
 
Cheerily, Sue
 







_______________________________________________
 Idr mailing list
 [e-mail]
 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr