Re: [Idr] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-09: (with COMMENT)

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rob,

The extensions in this document do not introduce any config-related change
to the BGP model.

However, at some point, the WG would need to work on a BGP-LS operational
model that can be used to report the state advertised via the protocol.
This draft would be adding a TLV to that operational BGP-LS state. I am not
aware of a draft as yet, but this has come up in private discussions with
some WG members.

Thanks,
Ketan


On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 6:55 PM Robert Wilton via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-09: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi,
>
> My only comment doesn't directly relate to the content in the document,
> but I
> would like to check whether any new YANG data nodes are required to
> configure,
> enable, or manage this extension and if so that they are being tracked by
> the
> WG chairs, or via another document so that they don't get forgotten.
>
> And a +1 on 6 authors on a 7 page document seeming excessive.
>
> Regards,
> Rob
>
>
>
>