Re: [Idr] Do you mind that draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt has IPR? [6/9/2019 to 6/16/2019]

"Susan Hares" <> Mon, 08 July 2019 16:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EF6D120046; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 09:42:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.949
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bb3BcoXsNXNh; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 09:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1A2012011B; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 09:42:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: Susan Hares <>
To: 'Jeff Tantsura' <>,
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 12:42:24 -0400
Message-ID: <00fe01d535ac$1f073230$5d159690$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00FF_01D5358A.97FDA880"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdU1q5ExbNpAXP39TraWMuNfGZb/PQ==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 190704-0, 07/04/2019), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Do you mind that draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt has IPR? [6/9/2019 to 6/16/2019]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 16:42:33 -0000



This is to formally call for the WG to consider that the draft-ietf-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt has 1 IPR Statement (see comments below).  I started this discussion on June 9th, but I did not bring it to a good conclusion.  


As far as I can tell, there is no IDR objection to WG LC draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt.   Please comment by 7/12/2019 if you object to the WG LC.  The shepherd is waiting for -06.txt of this document with additional error handling in order to begin WG LC.   Hopefully, that draft will appear today. 


Cheerily, Susan Hares 



From: Idr [] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Sunday, June 9, 2019 12:19 PM
To: 'Jeff Tantsura';
Subject: Re: [Idr] Shepherd Review for draft-ietf-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt




Thank you for indicating as an inventor there is only one patent, but 2 claims. The discussion of the patent is outside of my purview as IDR WG co-Chair or the IDR WG’s appropriate discussion.    


The shepherd statement is still accurate, I need to make an IPR call to decide whether the WG approves in WG LC any document with IPR on the document.   Since all IPR statements have been made, and you are going to revise the document, I will start the IPR call based on the 1 patent (2 IPR claims below).  


Cheerily, Susan Hares







 <> Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd



 <> Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)'s Statement about IPR related to draft-tantsura-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd





From: Idr [] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
Sent: Sunday, June 9, 2019 3:29 AM
To:; Susan Hares
Subject: Re: [Idr] Shepherd Review for draft-ietf-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt




Wrt 2 IPR statements:

this is the same IPR, one published against individual draft, another, after idr has adopted it.


The author will be working to address your comments..




On Jun 7, 2019, 7:27 PM -0700, Susan Hares <>, wrote:

Jeff, Ketan, Uma, Greg, and Nikos: 


My initial shepherd review of draft-ietf-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt  has three points:


2 IPR statements means the draft will have to go through an IPR call for the IPR issues

Error handling section needs to be added to the draft (requires -06.txt)

The implementation report needs to be improved (see below)


After all things are completed, I will start the WG LC.


Sue Hares

(Shepherd/WG co-chair)



2 IPR Statements


The 2 IPR statements for this draft means that after all authors indicate IPR knowledge,

I will need to do a WG call for considering the draft with 2 IPR statements.


Otherwise, the IESG may wish to cycle a discussion on the IPR.   

It takes less time to just do it up-front..



Error handling


This draft must add an error handling section that indicates what happen if the

Node MSD TLV and the Link MSD TLV are incorrectly parsed. 

This is a requirement for the shepherd/WG chair to send this to WG LC or the

QA reviews (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR). 


I also would prefer to see

as a WG document prior to sending this to the IESG.  


Could you check with the authors to determine its status?

Otherwise, the error handling section in this draft will need

to be improved.  



Implementation report improvement



The implementation reports for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05 needs improving and your draft needs to have additional error handling specified. 


You need to indicate key features:


MSD and SR routing interaction

MSD advertisements MAY be useful even if SR itself is not enabled. 


MSD and BGP-LS interaction  

2a) The BGP-LS speaker may also advertise the
      MSD information for the local node and its links when not running any
      link-state IGP protocol e.g. when running BGP as the only routing


      2b) This enables sharing of MSD-Types that may
      be defined in the future by the IGPs in BGP-LS.



Support for Node TLV parsing

3a – feature support ( yes/no)


3b-  MUST  (yes/20)


         MSD-Value : a number in the range of 0-255.  For all MSD-Types,

         0 represents the lack of ability to impose an MSD stack of any

         depth; any other value represents that of the node.  This value

         MUST represent the lowest value supported by any link

         configured for use by the advertising protocol instance.



        3c) Support for Error handling if Node TLV is incorrectly parsed – This needs to be specified your draft



Support for Link MSD TLV

4a) support for feature

4b) support for error handling if Link MSD is incorrectly parsed