Re: [Idr] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-sla-exchange-10

"Susan Hares" <> Sat, 04 March 2017 15:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 622921295D6; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 07:36:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.946
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z952LouxYACd; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 07:36:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 379591294EE; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 07:36:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: Susan Hares <>
To: 'Ron Bonica' <>, 'Shitanshu Shah' <>,,,
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2017 10:31:46 -0500
Message-ID: <053401d294fc$6f739180$4e5ab480$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0535_01D294D2.869E4CD0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQH+U8bIprcHIBv9vIIxWXYNekqkjQJ00uVDAja9hsWhB/SR8A==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-sla-exchange-10
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2017 15:36:40 -0000



Please address Ron's comment about widely deployed.  I believe this was part
of Alvaro's comments. 




From: rtg-dir [] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 12:07 PM
To: Shitanshu Shah;;;
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-sla-exchange-10




The draft is internally consistent. But given what is left out of scope, I
wonder if the new attributes will ever be widely deployed.





This document might benefit from discussion of operational issues. I assume
that when a BGP listener learns a route with the SLA Exchange Attribute, it
provisions class of service forwarding classes on interfaces.


##svshah, though this is one desired use of exchanging SLA content, the
draft focuses on transporting SLA content from the SLA Producer to the SLA
Consumer. Processing of the QoS attribute content, at the SLA Consumer, is
outside the scope of this document.


##svshah, Let me know if you have a suggestion to make description clearer
in Section 1 and 2 to highlight this.



I also assume that a) it takes time to provision class of service forwarding
classes and b) the number of forwarding classes that can be provisioned are
finite. What does the BGP listener do when the number of forwarding classes
requested exceeds its capacity to deliver? 


##svshah, Since scope of the document is to transport SLA content from the
SLA Producer to the SLA Consumer, the document considers error handling in
the context of transporting data and thus any formating errors and semantics
errors within that context. Any errors in the context of processing QoS
attribute content at the SLA Consumer is outside the scope of the document.