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

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

Ketan, Jeff,  Uma,  Greg and Nikos: 

 

Thank you for the additions in -06.txt on the manageability section.

It helps clarify the manageability.  However, this draft needs 

another revision to handle 2 major points (1) mentioning RFC7752bis, 

2) yang model reference)) and an editorial point. 

 

I mentioned referencing RFC5572bis in my previous comments. 

The text below gives some specific text as guidance.   

The yang model references added in -06.txt is not exactly accurate. 

I've provided a textual suggestion. 

 

We have two early reviews outstanding: OPS-DIR (overdue), and 

RTG-DIR (due 9/14/2016).     If you could get -07.txt out 

so both reviewers could review the -07.txt, it would be helpful. 

 

Cheerily,  Sue 

 

---------------

2 Major points: 

 

Major point 1: RFC7752bis should be referenced. 

                             It can be referenced as informational. 

 

Why change:  RFC7752 has known gaps in the clarity of the

   error handling section.  Pointing to work that 

     is developing for RFC7752bis will answer questions 

      that the security area wants to see resolved. 

 

      I agree with the authors of RFC7752bis that rushing 

      RFC7752bis work is not wise.  I have augmented the 

      shepherd's report with language to support this issue.  

              

Suggested textual changes:

Location:  7. Security Considerations  page 7. 

What: [paragraph 2] replacement 

 

Old/The document does not introduce security issues beyond those 

Discussed in [RFC7752], [RFC8475], and [RFC8491]. / 

 

New /The document does not introduce additional security issues beyond
discussed 

In [RFC7752], [RFC8476] and [RC8491].   However, [RFC7752] is being 

revised in [RFC7752bis] to provide additional clarification in several
portions 

of the specification after receiving feedback from implementers. 

One of the places that is being clarified is the error handling and
security. 

It is expected that after [RFC7752bis] is released that implementers will 

update all BGP-LS base implementations improving the error handling for

protocol work (including this draft) that depend on this function.  / 

 

Major Point 2:  [draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang] does not cover 

the manageability features of MSD in BGP 

 

Why change:  The yang model [draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang] data model 

does not provide any  link to the BGP model or an extension for BGP-LS, 

or a further extension to BGP-LS for SR-routing MSD. 

 

Text change: 

Location: section 6, second full paragraph:  

 

Old: /The extensions specified in this document, do not introduce

any new configuration or monitoring aspects in BGP or BGP-LS

other than as discussed in [RFC7742]. / 

 

New:/The extensions specified in this document, do not specify

any new configuration or monitoring aspects in BGP or BGP-LS.

The specification of BGP models BGP and BGP-LS models is an 

ongoing work based on the Yang model  [draft-ietf-bgp-model-06].

 

The management of the MSD features within an ietf segment-routing 

stack  is also an ongoing work based on the yang model specified 

in [draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang].   Management of the segment routing 

in IGPs is ongoing work for ISIS  (see [draft-ietf-isis-sr-yang]), and 

OSPF (draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang)]. / 

 

 

Editorial issue: 

 

1.1.1.        Terminology 

Please add a definition for MSD capabilities  - you use it in section 2
first sentence. 

 

Why: A definition will help the reader.   Otherwise, I suspect we will get
an AD comment or 

an IESG comment on "what is a MSD capability". 

 

 

 

From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 10:46 AM
To: 'Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)'; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt
- WG consensus pending

 

Ketan:

 

Thank you for the reminder.  I am reviewing the document and the shepherd's
report this morning.   

 

Sue Hares 

 

From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 1:14 PM
To: Susan Hares; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt
- WG consensus pending

 

Hi Sue,

 

We have published the v06 last week. There have been no further
implementation report updates (besides the two that were done previously).

 

Could you please review the draft and implementation report updates for the
draft progression?

 

Thanks,

Ketan

 

From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 15 August 2019 20:46
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Idr] 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 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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 11:17 AM
To: [e-mail]
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:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 7:07 AM
To: Susan Hares; 'IDR'
Cc: [e-mail]
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 <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 07 August 2019 22:54
To: 'IDR' <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
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)