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)
- [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-rout… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
- Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-… Susan Hares