[Idr] Re: Shepherd's report for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-08 - Resending

[John Scudder <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Sue and all,

Based on the summary Sue linked, I think that sounds reasonable. In the unlikely event that I were to change my mind after digging into the background, there is still plenty of opportunity for more discussion, so I say go ahead and send it.

Thanks for checking,

—John

On Dec 6, 2024, at 6:46 AM, Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:



[External Email. Be cautious of content]

John:

Would you please review my resolution of Shepherd issues 15, 18, and 30?
Please see:

https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/Shepherd-SR-BGP-LS/BGP-LS-SR/bgp-ls-sr-policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/Shepherd-SR-BGP-LS/BGP-LS-SR/bgp-ls-sr-policy__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DwnYb059EN6R-PYEM2b9y_jLOPpGuxnreLL8gSdjcDnMcHRUQgc6-cr3FPnM-11z4RVeEbxzcHQ$>

We will forward the document to the IESG for publication if you agree.

Sue


From: Susan Hares
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2024 9:34 AM
To: John Scudder <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Shepherd's report for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-08

John:

Could you look at the resolution of the issues 15, 18, and 30 described below?
I am inclined to accept Ketan’s view that his text is sufficient.

I want to check with you.  Could you respond to the post with your viewpoint?

Thank you!

Cheers, Sue

From: Susan Hares
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2024 9:12 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: John Scudder <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Shepherd's report for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-08

Ketan:

Thank you for hard work to resolve the shepherd’s comments from
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-05 in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-08.
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/DLfvkhT7HOClFSfUzFNQ9z8bSFc/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/DLfvkhT7HOClFSfUzFNQ9z8bSFc/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DwnYb059EN6R-PYEM2b9y_jLOPpGuxnreLL8gSdjcDnMcHRUQgc6-cr3FPnM-11z4RVeev_F6cQ$>)

You have resolved the shepherd’s points except issues 15, 18, and 30.
On issues 15, 18, and 30, your responses indicate why you
believe your text is correct for these issues.

My resolution to these issues is to send a note to IDR’s WG’s AD (John Scudder)
to confirm that your resolution is acceptable to him.

Cheers Sue


=====================
Issue 15:  Section 5.6.5 - Length range,
Current text: / * Length: Variable.  Minimum of 8 octets./

Shepherd’s comments: The maximum is the amount that fits in the packet minutes the headers.
Ketan’s point:  BGP-LS has a common concept that a maximum is what fits in the packet.  An addition here would be confusing.

Both issue 18 and 30
Issue-18: Section 5.6.6, Metric-Type

Are all other values except the values in section 8.6 invalid?
Here's the problem:
Values 1-5 - are tested with the details recorded in the implementation report.
Values 6-120 – are unassigned and not tested.
Values 121-127 -  are outside the scope of the draft.
Values 128-255 -  are user defined and outside the scope of this

Ketan feels that the IANA assignment provides enough information to the
Implementer.

Issue-30: Section 5.9 Metric-Type

Are all other values except the values in section 8.6 invalid?

Here's the problem:
Values 1-5 - are tested and recored
Values 6-120 - are outside the scope of this document.
Values 121-127 - are outside thescope of this document.
Values 128-255 - are user defined.

Ketan feels that the IANA assignment provides enough information to the
Implementer.