[Idr] Re: IETF 124 - non-IDR presentations of interest

[Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeff, all,

Thank you for highlighting the presentations.

Regarding "Distribution of Service Metadata in BGP FlowSpec (draft-yi-idr-bgp-fs-edge-service-metadata-04)",  I would like to note a few technical considerations.  Perhaps the IDR WG can discuss whether those issues are significant.

-       FlowSpec is designed around NLRI match components and action communities.
      The proposal introduces new Path Attributes to carry metadata inside FlowSpec, which is not aligned with the FlowSpec data model or existing registries. This creates ambiguity around how such attributes would be encoded, validated, and processed at ingress.

-       FlowSpec requires strict validation per RFC 8955/8956 to avoid unintended forwarding changes.
   The proposal does not define validation rules for the metadata TLVs, redirect actions, or aggregated metrics, nor how to ensure safety when steering is triggered by dynamic metadata.

-       Introducing new Path Attributes in a FlowSpec context does not appear to align with existing FlowSpec registries.

Given these points, using FlowSpec as a signaling channel for detailed service metadata appears inconsistent with current FlowSpec design principles and may introduce operational and security risks.
That said, it may be reasonable to use FlowSpec to distribute aggregated values (e.g., controller-derived metrics), somewhat analogous to IGPs advertising path metrics.  In that case, it would be helpful for the draft to clarify the expected encoding, validation, and interaction with UPDATE-based signaling.

My two cents,
Linda

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2025 9:00 AM
To: idr <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Idr] IETF 124 - non-IDR presentations of interest

Working Group,

The following presentations from outside of IDR might be of broader interest to IDR working group participants.  This list doesn't pretend to be comprehensive;  it is simply things that caught my eye as I'm browsing through agendas that are currently posted:

https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fmeeting%2F124%2Fmaterials%2Fagenda-124-cats-01&data=05%7C02%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cfe230eb1cff14e3530a408de163b243f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638972640434423308%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QR%2FjP4N3%2FvJtm%2B01iUVhmQH9qPn9PpAdWQPkbatxkmM%3D&reserved=0

- Distribution of Service Metadata in BGP FlowSpec.  The material discusses blending flowspec, the metadata draft (which will have an update in cats as well), coloring mechanisms, and new path attributes.

I didn't think cats was yet chartered to work on protocol extensions.

https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fmeeting%2F124%2Fmaterials%2Fagenda-124-sidrops-01&data=05%7C02%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cfe230eb1cff14e3530a408de163b243f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638972640434462620%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xtotYfauuqXN%2B1Ug%2BXZduge4jABfrRf2FqFbKb2Zr%2Bg%3D&reserved=0

- Transition to Full BGPsec Deployment: Transitive-BGPsec is Incompatible with BGPsec.  A discussion to re-litigate the BGPsec restrictions on attribute transitivity.
- Forwarding Commitment BGP Testbed and Deployment Experience. FC BGP was previously presented in IDR.

https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fmeeting%2F124%2Fmaterials%2Fagenda-124-bess-00&data=05%7C02%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cfe230eb1cff14e3530a408de163b243f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638972640434486308%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RJqh5fIwwSu%2B3drrHwa7Lqz%2BEPZMC77mSyVY99DBIJM%3D&reserved=0

- draft-ietf-bess-ebgp-dmz-08.  This is a continuation of the link bandwidth work split between IDR and BESS.

Grow normally has topics of interest to IDR participants, however their agenda is not yet published.

https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fmeeting%2F124%2Fmaterials%2Fagenda-124-rtgwg-02&data=05%7C02%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cfe230eb1cff14e3530a408de163b243f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638972640434512275%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TTWWNwsVm7QfuBxXb2INROG1GGpfl4vAgG7gLvUtK3M%3D&reserved=0

- There is a track on "FANTEL" which covers congestion signaling.  This overlaps the recently adopted draft-ietf-idr-next-next-hop-nodes.

https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fmeeting%2F124%2Fmaterials%2Fagenda-124-savnet-04&data=05%7C02%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cfe230eb1cff14e3530a408de163b243f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638972640434538940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=j5KGWl3EYe2djsrCf2b9rMGuUnptjxsdk%2FBmD4HC7%2BI%3D&reserved=0

- SAVNET continues to explore the use of routing technologies, including BGP and RPKI, for source address validation and enforcement. This session has no BGP signaling mechanisms being discussed.

-- Jeff




_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>