Re: [Idr] Early Allocation request for the Path Attribute needed by d

[Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>]

Tom,

How about adding the following text ( using the RFC8669's style to describe the behavior of the Metadata Path Attribute)?

      The BGP Metadata Path attribute MAY be attached to BGP IPv4/IPv6 Unicast prefixes, BGP Labeled IPv4/IPv6 prefixes [RFC8277], and IPv4/IPv6 Anycast prefixes [RFC4786]. In order to prevent distribution of the BGP Metadata Path attribute beyond its intended scope of applicability, attribute filtering SHOULD be deployed to remove the BGP Metadata Path attribute at the administrative boundary.
      A BGP speaker that advertises a path received from one of its neighbors SHOULD advertise the BGP Metadata Path attribute received with the path without modification as long as the BGP Metadata Path attribute was acceptable. If the path did not come with a BGP Metadata Path attribute, the speaker MAY attach a BGP Metadata Attribute to the path if configured to do so. One or more Metadata Sub-TLVs can be included in a Metadata Path Attribute in one BGP UPDATE message. The content of the Sub-TLVs present in the BGP Metadata Path attribute is determined by the configuration.



See the attached changes with Change Bar enabled.

Thanks, Linda

-----Original Message-----
From: tom petch <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 11:20 AM
To: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>; Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; John Scudder <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] Early Allocation request for the Path Attribute needed by d

From: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: 21 August 2023 15:52
To: tom petch; Susan Hares; John Scudder
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Idr] Early Allocation request for the Path Attribute needed by d

Tom,

Sorry I was on vacation without internet last week, so didn't reply to your comments in time.

You said that
"..., e.g. to what address families does the attribute apply.  All families, only  AF1, all SAFI, only ... This should be explicit in the I-D IMHO not reverse engineered from the NLRI."

Are you saying we need to list all the SAFIs and AFIs specified by IANA? There are more than 150 SAFIs specified by IANA. It doesn't make sense to list all of them (https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fsafi-namespace%2Fsafi-namespace.xhtml&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ce5df8f768d9747596cb508dba2627b7e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638282316106380779%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KMIB7IUfELyfrwcGollgwYmZJRjc8WArXzaYgzTRk3k%3D&reserved=0 )

<tp>
I am saying that when I look at other RFC which introduce new attributes, I see a discussion of AFI/SAFI e.g. in RFC6514, RFC9234 or RFC8669.

If this applies to every SAFI listed in IANA (really?) then I expect to see a statement thereof in the I-D.  And you need to consider there could be a future SAFI for which it is not suitable.  Sometimes  an RFC will say that any future addition to  registry must specify its applicability in terms of what that RFC is specifying.  Complicated but sometimes necessary since we do not know what someone will come up with in the future e.g the advent of 32 bit AS or large communities or source routing have spread considerable ripples across the IETF;  a good standard considers such possibilities even when it does not know what is coming.

Tom Petch






The -07 version states:
"the metrics Sub-TLVs included in the Metadata Path Attribute apply to all the AFIs/SAFIs address families carried by the MP_REACH_NLRI."

Linda

-----Original Message-----
From: tom petch <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 6:22 AM
To: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; John Scudder <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Early Allocation request for the Path Attribute needed by d

From: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
Sent: 09 August 2023 17:00

Tom,

Is adding the following paragraphs to the Metadata Path Attribute adequate? Also, add a section on Validation and Error Handling and all the references.

<tp>
IMHO the issues are not addressed, rather circumvented.

To say that the attribute applies to all the address families in the NLRI is to me a statement of the obvious and does not address the point which Ketan raised i.e. to what address families does the attribute apply.  All families, only  AF1, all SAFI, only ... This should be explicit in the I-D IMHO not reverse engineered from the NLRI.
Some might call this an Applicability statement!

Likewise the text does specify the valid combinations of (sub-)TLV.  The use of the plural suggests that it SHOULD be more than one, but on of each of all four, two of one and none of the others, ...
This should be explicit in the I-D IMHO.

Tom Petch

4.1.    Metadata Path Attribute
The Metadata Path Attribute is an optional transitive BGP Path attribute to carry metrics and metadata about the edge services attached to the egress router. The Metadata Path Attribute, to be assigned by IANA [RFC2042], consists of a set of sub-TLVs, and each sub-TLV contains information for specific metrics of the edge services.

Most BGP UPDATE messages don't include the Metadata Path Attribute. For the limited edge services that need to advertise the metadata about the services, the Metadata Path Attribute can be included in a BGP UPDATE message [RFC4271] together with other BGP Path Attributes [IANA-BGP-PARAMS], such as Communities [RFC4360], NEXT_HOP, Tunnel Encapsulation Path Attribute [RFC9012], etc. The metrics Sub-TLVs included in the Metadata Path Attribute apply to all the address families carried in the NLRI field of the BGP UPDATE message [RFC4271]. For a multi-protocol BGP UPDATE message [RFC4760] [RFC7606], the metrics Sub-TLVs included in the Metadata Path Attribute apply to all the AFIs/SAFIs address families carried by the MP_REACH_NLRI.

A BGP UPDATE message that includes the Metadata Path Attribute doesn't change the BGP Error Handling procedure specified in the [RFC7606]. When a value in one of the Sub-TLVs within the Metadata Path Attribute is out of its specified ranges, only the Sub-TLV is ignored by the BGP receiver; all other Sub-TLVs within the Metadata path Attribute are still valid.



  1.  Validation and Error Handling

The Metadata Path Attribute contains a sequence of Sub-TLVs. The Metadata Path Attribute's length determines the total number of octets for all the Sub-TLVs under the Metadata Path Attribute. The sum of the lengths from all the Sub-TLVs under the Metadata Path Attribute should equal the length of the Metadata Path Attribute.  If this is not the case, the TLV should be considered malformed, and the "Treat-as-withdraw" procedure of [RFC7606] is applied.
If a Metadata Path attribute can be parsed correctly but contains a Sub-TLV whose type is not recognized by a particular BGP speaker, that BGP speaker MUST NOT consider the attribute to be malformed. Rather, it MUST interpret the attribute as if that Sub-TLV had not been present. If the route carrying the Metadata path attribute is propagated with the attribute, the unrecognized Sub-TLV remains in the attribute.

Please let us know if you have more comments. We will incorporate them into Version -07.

Thank you,
Linda

-----Original Message-----
From: tom petch <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 5:34 AM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>; Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>; John Scudder <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Early Allocation request for the Path Attribute needed by d

From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>>
Sent: 01 August 2023 17:26
Tom and John:

Would you kindly take a quick read to see if the wording is improved this week?   One implementation exists for this technology.  The authors are working to get interoperability with a second implementation.

<tp>

I find the ID inadequate.
I commented before that the problems start with the first two words and that remains true.  yes that is editorial not technical but I firmly believe that people act the same in different contexts so if the editorial aspects are imprecise, then the technical ones will be too.

Thus Ketan commented that a path attribute must specify the AFI to which it applies to which there was an e-mail response (that I thought inadequate) but there is nothing in the I-D.

The values for the sub-TLV have been incorporated but there is still a mismatch between the IANA Considerations and s.4.1; editorial again but indicative to me of a lack of attention to detail.

More technically, s.4 keeps referring to TLVs plural ie more than one.  Are all four types required in any one UPDATE?  Any two of more of the four?  Two of the same type?  And if whatever rules there are are broken,   what is the error response?  Seems like a good way to cause a lack of interoperability.

s.1 uses 'limited domain'  which is an undefined term and which has been provoking discussion on the IPv6 list recently as a result.

The Normative References are weak to almost non-existent and are inadequate for a Standards Track document.  There is at least one RFC number in the body of the document that is not in I-D references.

I am afraid that this is a week, a month when the 700lb guerillas are making e-mail difficult so I have not had time to review this adequately but I see enough to say I would not want it to progress, to be inadequate for an Early Allocation.

Tom Petch

Here are the sections that you may wish to review and comment on:

Section 3 - Does this section provide a rationale behind the Attribute.
Section 4 - Does each section provide a clear description of the fields in the TLV and SubTLVs?

Section 5 - contains two sections that give implementation/deployment hits.
a) Section 5.1 - Is this section necessary for cost?
Alternatively, this section could be in an informational document.

b) Section 5.2 - Is this section necessary?
This section clarifies how off-box "custom" BGP decision (draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision-08) processes might interact with normal BGP route selection.  This section is included because custom decision processes could be more prevalent in this use case.  The BGP decision within the box uses the normal policy mechanisms to select a route for installation in the RIB and FIB.   This discussion is information and non-normative as the draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision-08 + BGP RFCs cover this information.

Section 9 - Does this security description provide enough details on attribute scoping?

Cheerily, Sue


From: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 7:49 PM
To: tom petch <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>>; Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>>; John Scudder <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
Subject: RE: [Idr] Early Allocation request for the Path Attribute needed by d



Tom,



With Sue Hares' help, we have modified the draft, removed inconsistency naming, and addressed your comments.

The Version-06 has been uploaded.  https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-5g-edge-service-metadata%2F&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ce5df8f768d9747596cb508dba2627b7e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638282316106380779%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RSexmNKB6cIBs0qSmB8iLSsmJFHsWzyR0Dv09aQVnS8%3D&reserved=0<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-5g-edge-service-metadata%2F&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ce5df8f768d9747596cb508dba2627b7e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638282316106380779%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RSexmNKB6cIBs0qSmB8iLSsmJFHsWzyR0Dv09aQVnS8%3D&reserved=0<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-5g-edge-service-metadata%2F&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ce5df8f768d9747596cb508dba2627b7e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638282316106380779%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RSexmNKB6cIBs0qSmB8iLSsmJFHsWzyR0Dv09aQVnS8%3D&reserved=0>>



Thank you very much for the review. Many thanks to Sue's help in improving the wording.



Linda



-----Original Message-----

From: tom petch <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>>>

Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 11:28 AM

To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>>>; John Scudder <jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]>>>>>; Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>>>

Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>>

Subject: Re: [Idr] Early Allocation request for the Path Attribute needed by d



From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>>>

Sent: 27 July 2023 13:28



Tom:



The authors have been requested to have a document change before completing the early allocation sequence.

https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-5g-edge-service-metadata-05%23section-10.1&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ce5df8f768d9747596cb508dba2627b7e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638282316106380779%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=J8GGOCRpn57Ng7ONEQb5AMnhzSdyjmHB6Jm1BM6Xczw%3D&reserved=0<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-5g-edge-service-metadata-05%23section-10.1&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ce5df8f768d9747596cb508dba2627b7e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638282316106380779%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=J8GGOCRpn57Ng7ONEQb5AMnhzSdyjmHB6Jm1BM6Xczw%3D&reserved=0<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-5g-edge-service-metadata-05%23section-10.1&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ce5df8f768d9747596cb508dba2627b7e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638282316106380779%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=J8GGOCRpn57Ng7ONEQb5AMnhzSdyjmHB6Jm1BM6Xczw%3D&reserved=0>>



The only thing appropriate to an early allocation is the assignment of an IDR Path Attribute assignment.

(see https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.ietf.org%2Fgroup%2Fidr%2FEarly-Allocation-Status&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ce5df8f768d9747596cb508dba2627b7e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638282316106380779%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cpcILt1XpYobQZdq%2BhhjDUzoWfebu7bGGTcUjuqJZRQ%3D&reserved=0<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.ietf.org%2Fgroup%2Fidr%2FEarly-Allocation-Status&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ce5df8f768d9747596cb508dba2627b7e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638282316106380779%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cpcILt1XpYobQZdq%2BhhjDUzoWfebu7bGGTcUjuqJZRQ%3D&reserved=0<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.ietf.org%2Fgroup%2Fidr%2FEarly-Allocation-Status&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ce5df8f768d9747596cb508dba2627b7e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638282316106380779%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cpcILt1XpYobQZdq%2BhhjDUzoWfebu7bGGTcUjuqJZRQ%3D&reserved=0>>)



Are you concerned about the documents stability for starting work on implementations?



<tp>

Sue,



it is the lack of consistency, the lack of coherence within the I-D that says to me things have to change and if changing things is  a lack of stability, then yes it is a lack of stability.



I agree that IANA need not be concerned with the new sub-registry and the subtypes therein just now but the lack of consistency relating to those actions needs tidying up.



You point to the early allocation wiki but I note that the identifier used relating to the new path attribute there is not the identifier used in the I-D.  Lack of consistency again. Putting it right may be obvious but for BGP, at this stage, I think that that should be  right, not left for the reader to make informed guesses.



Tom Petch



Cheers,



Sue



From: tom petch <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>>>

Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 7:51 AM

To: John Scudder <jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]>>>>>; Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>>>

Cc: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>>

Subject: Re: [Idr] Early Allocation request for the Path Attribute needed by draft-ietf-idr-5g-edge-service-metadata-04







From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>>>> on behalf of John Scudder <jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]%3cmailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]%3cmailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]%3cmailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]%3cmailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]%3cmailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]%3cmailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]%3cmailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]<mailto:jgs=[e-mail]%3cmailto:jgs=[e-mail]>>>>>>



Sent: 20 July 2023 23:52







Hi Folks,







(I'm not the AD for this group, but I can still chime in!)







I think you will discover that although early allocations from existing registries are a well-established practice, there is no equivalent practice of establishing new registries prior to the publication of an RFC.







<tp>



Disagree.  Not common perhaps but I have seen it done! and below, I think that the I_D needs more work before passing to IANA.







</tp>







Generally, if the only allocations being made from the proposed new registry are for the document that creates the registry (l.e. it's all self-contained in one document) then this is easy: the IANA section both creates the registry and supplies the initial values. This also means that for the new registry, you don't have to hold off as TBD, you can pick your own values, that's part of the privilege of being the Founding Document of the registry. :-)







Things get harder for not-yet-created registries if other drafts depend on the registry-to-be. I have some notes toward establishing guidance on how to handle this, but it's fortunately a rare problem. At present it's done ad hoc, but I doubt you need to worry about this.







I took a very brief glance at the draft. The IANA Considerations section needs some work. Here's a quick pass at it, but please be aware that I haven't taken the time to consider the draft deeply, so I may have introduced errors!







OLD:



   Need IANA to assign the Metadata Path Attribute Type.







     Metadata Path Attribute Type = TBD1.







   Need IANA to assign three new Sub-TLV types under the



   Metadata Path Attribute:







     Type = TBD2: Site preference value sub-TLV







     Type = TBD3: Site Capacity Availability Index sub-TLV







     Type = TBD4: Service Delay Prediction Index.







     Type = TBD5: Raw measurements of packets/bytes to/from the



     Edge Service address.







NEW:



   IANA is requested to assign a new path attribute from the



   "BGP Path Attributes" registry. The symbolic name of the



   attribute is "Metadata" and the reference is <this document>.







   IANA is requested to create a new registry in the



   "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters" group. The



   registry's name is "Metadata Path Attribute sub-TLVs".



   The registration policy is (authors: see RFC 8126 Section 4 and



   pick something appropriate, Standards Action seems OK in



   this case but I haven't thought about it very hard).







   Initial values for this registry are given below:







   Value        Description                                     Reference



   -----        -----------                                     ---------



   0            Reserved                                        this document



   1            Site preference value           this document



   2            Site Capacity Availability      this document



                        Index



   3            Service Delay Prediction        this document



                        Index



   4            Raw measurements of             this document



                        packets/bytes to/from the



                Edge Service address



   5-254        Unassigned



   255          Reserved                                        this document







<tp2>



The I-D requests five values from IANA three of which are referred to as TBD, TDB, TBD2.  The other two have no short identifier.







For the  Metadata Path Attribute Sub-Types







Well why subtype?  Why not TLV sub type?







Since this is a new (sub) registry, I think it ok to tell IANA (politely) what values to use but the I-D ties itself into knots by not using them. The values SHOULD appear in s.4.1, s.4.2, s.4.3, s.4.4.2







IANA is also asked to assign a BGP Path Attributes value. The I-D could suggest  a value.  I think it should since the registry appears to have two ranges, 0-127 and 128-40 (-ish) and I do not know why so do not know which range this value should be from.







I think too that the draft needs work elsewhere - look at the first two words! - although I do not think that that affects Early Allocation







Tom Petch







HTH,







-John







P.S.: when you submit the next version of draft-ietf-idr-5g-edge-service-metadata, please consider uploading XML source instead of rendered TXT. If you upload the XML, the HTML rendering will be available from Datatracker, and some of us find the HTML rendering to be more readable/usable. As far as I can tell, there's no downside to doing it this way, only benefits.







> On Jul 17, 2023, at 3:09 PM, Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>>>> wrote:



>



>



>



> Sue,



>



> Thank you very much.



> Do I need to wait for IANA to create the Metadata Path Attribute registry before creating registry for the sub-TLVs?



>



> Thanks, Linda



>



> From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>>>>



> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 4:39 PM



> To: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>>>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>>>



> Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>>>



> Subject: RE: Early Allocation request for the Path Attribute needed by draft-ietf-idr-5g-edge-service-metadata-04



>



> Linda:



>



> I have placed this allocation on our queue.  I think your SubTLVs require you creating a registry for the



> Metadata attribute SubTLVs.



>



>      Type = TBD2: Site preference value sub-TLV



>



>      Type = TBD3: Site Capacity Availability Index sub-TLV



>



>      Type = TBD4: Service Delay Prediction Index.



>



>      Type = TBD5: Raw measurements of packets/bytes to/from the



>      Edge Service address.



>



> Please confirm so I can send this off to Andrew and IANA before IETF-117.



>



> Sue



>



> From: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>>>>



> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 4:05 PM



> To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>>>



> Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>>>



> Subject: Early Allocation request for the Path Attribute needed by draft-ietf-idr-5g-edge-service-metadata-04



>



>



> IDR WG Chairs,



>



> We believe that https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-5g-edge-service-metadata%2F&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ce5df8f768d9747596cb508dba2627b7e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638282316106536984%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yV2scNyFjgLdda2%2F6fWKSlcLUr6uD%2B4MHl8yEZ0%2FUiU%3D&reserved=0<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-5g-edge-service-metadata%2F&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ce5df8f768d9747596cb508dba2627b7e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638282316106536984%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yV2scNyFjgLdda2%2F6fWKSlcLUr6uD%2B4MHl8yEZ0%2FUiU%3D&reserved=0<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-5g-edge-service-metadata%2F&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ce5df8f768d9747596cb508dba2627b7e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638282316106536984%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yV2scNyFjgLdda2%2F6fWKSlcLUr6uD%2B4MHl8yEZ0%2FUiU%3D&reserved=0>> is relatively stable.



> Can we request Early Allocation for the Path Attribute specified by the draft-ietf-idr-5g-edge-service-metadata-04?



>



> Thank you very much



> Linda



>



> -----Original Message-----



> From: Amanda Baber via RT <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>>>>



> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 4:06 PM



> To: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>>>>



> Subject: [IANA #1266252] Request for Assignment (bgp-parameters - draft-ietf-idr-5g-edge-service-metadata)



>



> Hi Linda,



>



> Thanks for contacting us.



>



> Unfortunately, we're unable to make any of these registrations now. The registration procedure for the BGP Path Attributes registry is Standards Action, which requires that the IESG approve a standards-track document for publication. There is a pathway, however: the RFC 7120 Early Allocation policy. This process is described in Section 3:



>



> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Frfc%2Frfc7120.html%23section-3&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ce5df8f768d9747596cb508dba2627b7e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638282316106536984%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3cDaiEIgzXDdf5IjzXImotYnSMxIt73R2PVdxv5bkUQ%3D&reserved=0<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Frfc%2Frfc7120.html%23section-3&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ce5df8f768d9747596cb508dba2627b7e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638282316106536984%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3cDaiEIgzXDdf5IjzXImotYnSMxIt73R2PVdxv5bkUQ%3D&reserved=0<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Frfc%2Frfc7120.html%23section-3&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ce5df8f768d9747596cb508dba2627b7e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638282316106536984%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3cDaiEIgzXDdf5IjzXImotYnSMxIt73R2PVdxv5bkUQ%3D&reserved=0>>



>



> In short, we would need an IDR chair to submit the request (with WG and AD approval).



>



> We won't be able to create a sub-registry for the sub-TLVs until the document has been approved by the IESG. However, if that document is creating the sub-registry, there's no need to list the values as "TBD." A document can assign the values for a registry that it creates. If other documents need to add values to that sub-registry before this draft-ietf-idr-5g-edge-service-metadata is approved, one option would be to add the values to a table in this document's IANA Considerations that records references as well as names and values.



>



> Before the document is approved, we'll also need you to provide a name and a registration procedure (see RFC 8126, Section 4 for suggestions) for the new sub-registry. In addition, I'd recommend creating sub-sections in the IANA Considerations section: one for the BGP Path Attribute, and another for its new sub-registry.



>



> If you have any questions, or if you'd like an early review for a new IANA Considerations section, please don't hesitate to contact us [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>>> (the address provided at https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fcontact&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ce5df8f768d9747596cb508dba2627b7e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638282316106536984%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4%2FBhLbr1%2FOcnhGDJCvEptmuJZYuCmMq0V2w5FqKm31s%3D&reserved=0<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fcontact&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ce5df8f768d9747596cb508dba2627b7e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638282316106536984%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4%2FBhLbr1%2FOcnhGDJCvEptmuJZYuCmMq0V2w5FqKm31s%3D&reserved=0<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fcontact&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ce5df8f768d9747596cb508dba2627b7e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638282316106536984%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4%2FBhLbr1%2FOcnhGDJCvEptmuJZYuCmMq0V2w5FqKm31s%3D&reserved=0>>)



>



> Best regards,



>



> Amanda Baber



> IANA Operations Manager



>



> On Wed Feb 08 19:16:23 2023, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>>> wrote:



> >



> > Contact Name:



> > Linda Dunbar



> >



> > Contact Email:



> > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>>>



> >



> > Type of Assignment:



> >  Need a new BGP Path Attribute: Metadata Path Attribute.



> > Need three subTLV types under the Metadata Path Attribute:



> > - Site Preference Index Metadata subTLV Type



> > - Capacity Index metadata subTLV Type



> >  - Load Measurement metadata subTLV Type



> >



> > Registry:



> > BGP Path Attributes



> >



> > Description:



> > The Edge Service Metadata can be used by the ingress routers in the 5G



> > Local Data Network to make path selections not only based on the



> > routing distance but also the running environment of the edge cloud



> > sites. The goal is to improve latency and performance for 5G edge



> > services.



> >



> > Additional Info:



> >



> > https://data/



> > tracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-idr-5g-edge-service-&data=05%7C01%



> > 7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Cdd560d93e2084068f72908db0a20a615%7C0f



> > ee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638114907604764699%7CUnknown%



> > 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJX



> > VCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OPGTbyKcmH6Akil8EoalGaZdXFFqPZFFqKr2K



> > BU26Nk%3D&reserved=0



> > metadata/



>



> _______________________________________________



> Idr mailing list



> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>>>



> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fidr__%3B!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AT-ULob54qwT1KGrsG2mExhR0a9UzBz66H6GxkuvnmJ89q18ICblmez3ZwFR6gytYbOCuVE8YFULHJIUUEV53Uw%24&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ce5df8f768d9747596cb508dba2627b7e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638282316106536984%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rQn9a4LMAA%2FyFostOsBYKroin7q0ZepBdDIZxXPCKSE%3D&reserved=0<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fidr__%3B!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AT-ULob54qwT1KGrsG2mExhR0a9UzBz66H6GxkuvnmJ89q18ICblmez3ZwFR6gytYbOCuVE8YFULHJIUUEV53Uw%24&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ce5df8f768d9747596cb508dba2627b7e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638282316106536984%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rQn9a4LMAA%2FyFostOsBYKroin7q0ZepBdDIZxXPCKSE%3D&reserved=0<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fidr__%3B!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AT-ULob54qwT1KGrsG2mExhR0a9UzBz66H6GxkuvnmJ89q18ICblmez3ZwFR6gytYbOCuVE8YFULHJIUUEV53Uw%24&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ce5df8f768d9747596cb508dba2627b7e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638282316106536984%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rQn9a4LMAA%2FyFostOsBYKroin7q0ZepBdDIZxXPCKSE%3D&reserved=0>>







_______________________________________________



Idr mailing list



[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>>>



https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fidr&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ce5df8f768d9747596cb508dba2627b7e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638282316106536984%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=aEtz9byJj77n%2FpBucsIOi7kTbFimSyZRz%2FzdwRAoaBw%3D&reserved=0<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fidr&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ce5df8f768d9747596cb508dba2627b7e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638282316106536984%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=aEtz9byJj77n%2FpBucsIOi7kTbFimSyZRz%2FzdwRAoaBw%3D&reserved=0<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fidr&data=05%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7Ce5df8f768d9747596cb508dba2627b7e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638282316106536984%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=aEtz9byJj77n%2FpBucsIOi7kTbFimSyZRz%2FzdwRAoaBw%3D&reserved=0>>