[Idr] BGP-LS: Shepherd report for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-epe-over-l2bundle-00

[Susan Hares <[e-mail]>]

Summary
draft: [draft-ietf-idr-sr-epe-over-l2bundle]
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-epe-over-l2bundle/)
renamed draft from:  draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-sr-epe-over-l2bundle


Type: Proposed Standard
status: WG Draft (expires 3/2/2025),
adopted:  [9/1/2024]
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/xUckKQncQ4rLVCCAkBO6bQ6zcuk/) (8/1 to 8/30 call)
current version: -0
implementations: 2 (New H3C Technologies and ZTE Corp)
IANA Allocations: none needed
SR draft: none (refers to RFCs, no new TLVs, but new mechanisms)
Next step prior to WG-LC:  Revise for -01,  After -01 then fill out implementation reports.
Upon -01, IDR shepherd will review and send to Directorates (RTG, OPS) and SROPS

Detailed Shepherd's review

-00 review for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-epe-over-l2bundle
**draft (-00): [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-epe-over-l2bundle]
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-epe-over-l2bundle/)
[Note this draft was renamed to help track it better in IDR]

Technical issues:

Technical Issue-1, Section 3.1, paragraph 4, bullet 2

It is unclear what is optional in this portion of the bullet.
Please revise this text to provide a clear indication of what is optional.
"       -  include the PeerAdj SID TLV [RFC9086] for Peer Link(Optional)"

(Given 2 implementations, it should be easy to write the correct text.

Technical Issue-2: Section 3.2, paragraph 3, bullet 2

It is also unclear what is optional in the similar portion of the text in section 3.2:

"  *  Link Attribute TLV:
       -  include the SRv6 End.X SID TLV [RFC9514] for Peer
          Link (optional)"

Technical Issue-3:

Security section needs to be updated to indicate the fact that
you are exposing L2 bundles, which are critical information about the
Peer Adjacency infrastructure.  Care must be taken to protect any
critical information from the node as it gets passed via BGP-LS.

If you need help with the exact wording, please let me know.

Editorial issues:
Editorial Issue-1: Section 3.1, paragraph 2, 3rd sentence
Current text:
>    This information mustnot be
>    included in the BGP-LS Link NLRI that corresponds to the PeerNode
>    SID, as defined in Section 5.1 of [RFC9086].

replace by:
>    This information must not be
>    included in the BGP-LS Link NLRI that corresponds to the PeerNode
>    SID, as defined in Section 5.1 of [RFC9086].


#### Editorial Issue-2: Section 3.1, paragraph 3, sentence 1
Please replace this text:
>    Note that for directly connected EBGP neighbors, if a BGP neighbor is
>    established over an L2 Bundle, an additional BGP-LS Link NLRI(as
>    described in Section 5.2 of [RFC9086]) must be generated to advertise
>    Peer Link information when generating the BGP-LS Link NLRI (as
>    described in Section 5.1 of [RFC9086]) corresponding to the PeerNode
>   SID.

With:
>    Note that for directly connected EBGP neighbors, if a BGP neighbor is
>    established over an L2 Bundle, an additional BGP-LS Link NLRI (as
>    described in Section 5.2 of [RFC9086]) must be generated to advertise
>    Peer Link information when generating the BGP-LS Link NLRI (as
>    described in Section 5.1 of [RFC9086]) corresponding to the PeerNode
>    SID.

#### Editorial Issue-3: Sectino 3.1 paragraphy 4, bullet 2

Current text:

>    *  Link Attribute TLVs:
>
>       -  include the PeerAdj SID TLV [RFC9086] for Peer Link(Optional)
>
>       -  include the L2 Bundle Member Attributes TLV.
>
>          o  include the PeerAdj SID TLV [RFC9086] for each L2 Bundle
>             Member.

Replace by
>    *  Link Attribute TLVs:
>
>       -  include the PeerAdj SID TLV [RFC9086] for Peer Link (Optional)
>
>       -  include the L2 Bundle Member Attributes TLV.
>
>          o  include the PeerAdj SID TLV [RFC9086] for each L2 Bundle
>            Member.

## -01 Review

 **draft (-00):**  [draft-ietf-idr-sr-epe-over-l2bundle](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-epe-over-l2bundle/)

 **status**: Current