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

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Thu, 15 August 2019 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957411200B7; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 08:15:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.948
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.948 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] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ES6fpiJ1gbwE; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 08:15:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-100-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0D4B120090; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 08:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=97.112.26.170;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: <idr@ietf.org>
Cc: <draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org>
References: <01d601d54d44$da468ff0$8ed3afd0$@ndzh.com> <BYAPR11MB3558E18E1E92C8E6254C8C75C1D70@BYAPR11MB3558.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <01dd01d54ec5$85daa3c0$918feb40$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <01dd01d54ec5$85daa3c0$918feb40$@ndzh.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 11:15:42 -0400
Message-ID: <01d101d5537c$4df1ccc0$e9d56640$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01D2_01D5535A.C6E276B0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQMj0voX5flvvjlbfoGhSif8XQYxwwI2qBL2AWRSkhukQnpAAA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 190815-0, 08/15/2019), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ej7mtSo930Q7-03YZUmlSHBzA_s>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt - WG consensus pending
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 15:15:48 -0000

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:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 11:17 AM
To: idr@ietf.org
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-ms
d%20implementations

 

or to send information to the WG chairs. 

 

Cheerily, Susan Hares 

 

 

From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:ketant@cisco.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 7:07 AM
To: Susan Hares; 'IDR'
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org
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-ms
d%20implementations

 

Thanks,

Ketan

 

From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>; 
Sent: 07 August 2019 22:54
To: 'IDR' <idr@ietf.org>;
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org
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-ms
d%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)