[Idr] Brief Shepherd Reports on 10 BGP-LS Individual drafts proposed to IDR

[Susan Hares <[e-mail]>]

IDR WG:

Due to feedback from the IDR WG regarding IETF meeting time,
the IDR chairs have started to hold an interim for
BGP-LS and SR drafts before each IETF meeting.

September 9 at 10:00-12:00 EDT is the BGP-LS and SR
Interim before IETF-121.  If you want to request WG adoption
of your draft during September, October, or November,
you must request to present your draft at this Interim meeting.

Just a reminder, before an adoption call you need to have
an IDR WG shepherd (usually an IDR co-chair) review your draft.

Below is information on Allocation of SR Sub-TLVs and a brief
Review of 10 individual drafts related to BGP-LS proposed for IDR.

Cheerily, Sue Hares

================


Allocation Information
Segment Routing Sub-TLVs are still under early Allocation.
This meeting will propose an allocation method for
Segment routing Sub-TLVs.

For the BGP-LS individual drafts, most BGP-LS parameter
assignments are already under expert review. Therefore,
allocation is not covered at this meeting.

Reviews of 10 BGP-LS drafts


  1.  draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-algo-related-adjacency-sid-04

Please do the following things prior to requesting
pre-adoption shepherd's review of your draft:


  1.  Please update this draft to the latest version of the document.
   Please note that draft-peng-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-attr
   has been adopted as draft-ietf-idr-sr-te-policy-attr.


  1.  Please verify that the lsr WG reference are correct, and the

these documents have been adopted by lsr.


  1.  Please carefully define all parameters to specific lengths.
  2.  If You have a reserved flag, please indicate set to zero and ignored upon reception.
  3.  Please check your efforts align with [RFC9552],

Draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy.


  1.  draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-security-capability-03

Please do the following things prior to requesting
pre-adoption shepherd's review of your draft:


  1.  Please reduce your abstract to 2 paragraphs.
  2.  Please reduce your introduction to new points about

BGP-LS not found in [RFC9552]

  1.  Section 2.2 - please explain what adding the

Security capability attribute does for these features.

BGP-LS is reading the security attribute.

  1.  Once you explain the mechanisms, then you must explain why it

is needed for each place you want to add it.

Please note, this must be proven from a security perspective.


  1.  draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-cp-validity-01

Please do the following things prior to requesting
pre-adoption shepherd's review of your draft:


  1.  Please update your drafts to the latest revision.

[draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution] is replaced by

[draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-te-path] and

[draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy]


     Please update [RFC7752] to [RFC9552]


  1.  Please indicate why the CP Validity Sub-TLV

adds value to the BGP-LS stream by giving the

count of segments in a segment list.

Please adjust your text to indicate BGP-LS is read-only.



  1.  Please augment your procedures to indicate what happens

If the information is not available.



  1.  Please add a security section.


  1.  draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-transport-slide-06

This draft overlaps with the adopted IDR draft:
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-00.

What is different with this draft?


  1.  draft-dong-idr-bgp-ls-scalable-nrp-01

This extension describes hierarchy in the
NRP.  This is a valuable addition to the NRP
Mechanisms.

Should this material be added to the draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp?


  1.  draft-li-idr-bgpls-sr-policy-composite-path-06

This draft deals with the composite candidate path.

Please do the following things prior to requesting
pre-adoption shepherd's review of your draft:


  1.  update references to the appropriate latest drafts or RFCs,
  2.  Indicate how the Constituents SR Policy TLV is stored and used in operational BGP.
  3.  Add substantial text about the security considerations of a composite SR Policy.

Please note that composite SR Policy have a different attack vector than
the explicit segment lists.



  1.  draft-lin-idr-bgp-ls-te-policy-pm

Please do the following things prior to requesting
pre-adoption shepherd's review of your draft:


  1.  Upgrade your references to BGP-LS to [RFC9552]
  2.  Provide an introduction and
  3.  Provide a Security section that deals with the

BGP-LS distributing the critical information

about a network's performance.


  1.  Draft-liu-idr-bgpls-sr-p2mp-policy-distribution

Please plan to talk to the authors of
draft-ietf-idr-sr-p2mp-policy.

I noticed that the authors for this draft are
Yisong Liu, Changwang Lin, Hooman Bidgoli, and Sandy Zhang,

I noticed that the authors for
draft-ietf-idr-sr-p2mp-policy are
Hooman Bidgoli, Daniel Voyer, Andrew Stone, Rishabh Parekh, Serge Krier, and Swadesh Agrawal.

This draft should align with the mechanism and
Information in draft-ietf-idr-sr-p2mp-policy.


  1.  Draft-liu-idr-bgp-ls-srp-flexible-path-selection-00

I notice that the draft-liu-spring-sr-policy-flexible-path-selection
Adds parameters for the dynamic path switching.

Is this dynamic path switching between existing explicit Candidate paths or
Composite Candidate paths?  Or are these parameters of dynamic Candidate Paths?

This concept needs to be further defined in Spring WG. After getting the
Spring work completed, this draft should have the following changes:


  1.  Give [RFC9256] reference for type of Candidate paths
  2.  Add [RFC9552] reference
  3.  Explain carefully what type of Candidate Paths (explicit, dynamic, or composite)

This applies to

  1.  Explain the mechanism careful,
  2.  Give the SubTLVs


  1.  Draft-tong-idr-bgp-ls-savenet-00

The IDR chairs are discussing SAVNET with SAVNET authors.
The authors should contact the IDR Co-chairs to discuss
Why a Subnet identifier is being queried with BGP-LS.

We are examining all BGP related SAVNET drafts prior to IETF-121/