Re: [Idr] WG Last Call on Extened Message Support

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Robert: 

The management section is option and standardization does not depend on that
portion of the implementation report.  It is extremely valuable information
that Opendaylight has yes or (n/a). 

Susan Hares 

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Varga [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 6:42 PM
To: Susan Hares; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Last Call on Extened Message Support

Hello everyone,

On 29/01/2019 12:32, Susan Hares wrote:
>  
> 
> This begins a 2 week WG LC on Extended Message Support for BGP 
> (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-27).  You can access the draft at:
> 
>  
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages/
> 
>  
> 
> The authors should indicate whether they know of any IPR.   
> Implementers are encouraged to update the  implementation data at:
> 
>  
> 
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-implem
> entations

I have updated the report with the behavior of OpenDaylight implementation
to the extent I could quickly ascertain. I suspect all 12 answers in the
Management Information are either Yes, or N/A (in case of CLI), but I
currently do not have the cycles to make a definitive answer, sorry :(

[snip]

> As you comment on the draft, please consider if: a) the technology is 
> mature, b) the additional space in a BGP message would be helpful for 
> those deploying BGP-LS or SR, and c) if the specification is ready for 
> publication.

As an implementer: we have implemented this extension many moons ago based
on a request from a real-life deployment. I believe the answer to all three
questions is yes.

Regards,
Robert