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

["Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi John/All,

I've updated the 05 version of this draft which addresses Jeff's comment about the reserved field.

Thanks,
Ketan


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext/



There are also htmlized versions available at:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-05

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-05



A diff from the previous version is available at:

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-05


From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Sent: 07 April 2018 15:07
To: 'John G. Scudder' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: Hares Susan <[e-mail]>; idr wg <[e-mail]>; Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-04 (March 7 to March 21)

Hi John,

I did respond and acknowledge the first point raised by Jeff below and I am waiting to hear about any other comments before publishing that update. I will now publish this update early next week.

On the second point, I agree that the point raise should be addressed by a separate document that updates RFC7752 and I will get back to the WG on this.

With regards to the IPR call, as a co-author, I am not aware of any IPR for this draft.

Thanks,
Ketan

From: John G. Scudder <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: 06 April 2018 23:47
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Hares Susan <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; idr wg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-04 (March 7 to March 21)

Hi Authors (and WG),

Jeff raised two points during the WGLC:

On Mar 15, 2018, at 7:07 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]<mailto:[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