Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt - WG consensus pending

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

Hi Sue,

We have published the v06 last week. There have been no further implementation report updates (besides the two that were done previously).

Could you please review the draft and implementation report updates for the draft progression?

Thanks,
Ketan

From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Sent: 15 August 2019 20:46
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt - WG consensus pending

The WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt has completed.

The authors should

  1.  Submit draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-06.txt
  2.  Complete the Wiki page on the implementations.

At that point, the Shepherd report can be completed, and the draft sent to Alvaro for review.

Cheerily, Sue
From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 11:17 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt - WG consensus pending

Ketan:

Thank you for this response.   Please send me a note when you begin you have completed -06.txt,
and any updates.

I encourage other implementers to either update the web page
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd%20implementations

or to send information to the WG chairs.

Cheerily, Susan Hares


From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 7:07 AM
To: Susan Hares; 'IDR'
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt - WG consensus pending

Hi Sue/All,

The authors are working on the update and we'll post it once done/ready.

I've updated the implementation report with most of the items that you have suggested for the implementations that I am aware of. For the error handling part, since that text would get added in v06, we can look at that aspect after the posting is done.

I believe there are other implementations and would request WG members to update the same at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd%20implementations

Thanks,
Ketan

From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: 07 August 2019 22:54
To: 'IDR' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt - WG consensus pending

The WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt concludes on 8/8/2019.

At this point, we have about 12 people who have participated in this last call by making comments.   All comments regarding publication appear to be positive.   If you wish to make additional comments, please make your comments by 8/8/2019.

The implementations come from a single vendor (cisco).  A 1 week query will be made (starting on 8/8/2019)  to determine if the WG will accept 2 implementations from the same vendor to meet IDR requirement for 2 implementations.

The authors of this draft (Jeff,  Uma, Ketan, Greg, Nikos) need to do the following:

  1.  Post an -06.txt  revision that addresses any comments received at IETF 105 or on the WG list,
  2.  Upgrade the interoperability report at
  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd%20implementations

With details on the following MUST Clause support

Reference are:  section 3

      *  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.]
Reference in section 4: - a similar definition

      *  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 link when used as

         an outgoing interface.]


Expected addition to Wiki document is the following information
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support for zero MSD-value:
    Node MSD TLV:  yes/no
    Link MSD TLV: yes/no

Mechanism for reporting zero-value:

Error handling of MSD TLV  (according to RFC7752):
  Node MSD TLV:  yes/no
  Link MSD TLV :    yes /no


Mechanism for reporting errors on MSD TLV:  (log error in log file)