Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-04 (March 7 to March 21)

["John G. Scudder" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Authors (and WG),

Jeff raised two points during the WGLC:

> On Mar 15, 2018, at 7:07 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Minor comments as part of a re-read while waiting on my plane:
> RESERVED is not called out in its behavior.  Some place in the document
> should mention the usual "MUST be set to zero on send, SHOULD be ignored on
> receipt".  Otherwise, it's gibberish in, who knows what out when someone
> tries to use this field in the future.

I didn't see this one addressed. Authors, do you plan to update the draft to address the point? I didn't see any other points raised during the WGLC that would require an update.

> There are a number of TLV value fields that may be of variable lengths.  In
> many cases, those lengths are inherited from the underlying IGP documents.
> What is not documented is the behavior when the TLV is well formed but has
> unexpected length values.  Two simple examples:
> - Prefix Attribute Flag TLV; varies by IGP
> - Preference TLV; must be 1.
> 
> Do we treat this as malformed?  Do we ignore the sub-tlv?

This point was discussed between Jeff and Ketan on the list. It seems to me that it does bear further discussion, but that the issue doesn't need to be fixed in this draft nor to be blocking on the conclusion of the WGLC. Assuming the WG feels we should do better, the most obvious thing IMO would be a document that updates RFC 7752.

Finally, authors and contributors, we forgot to ask for the usual IPR declaration as part of the WGLC. If you could please take care of letting us know whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has not been declared, that would help conclude the WGLC. (Right now there is no IPR declared, https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext)

Thanks,

--John