Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-04 (March 7 to March 21)

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Thu, 15 March 2018 23:07 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D311275FD for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yyq4nQhb0pUE for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6BC9120725 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 229831E3FF; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 19:07:35 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 19:07:35 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Cc: 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20180315230734.GB6209@pfrc.org>
References: <011201d3b633$0b5fee60$221fcb20$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <011201d3b633$0b5fee60$221fcb20$@ndzh.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/pO4gPkdUE5pmCwq-hHoyzbq2SWo>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-04 (March 7 to March 21)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 23:07:36 -0000

On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 11:40:46AM -0500, Susan Hares wrote:
> This begins a 2 week WG LC for
> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-04.txt from March 7th to March 21.
> During your discussion in the WG LC, please indicate the following things: 
> 
>  
> 
> 1)      Do you think BGP should carry these link state information regarding
> segment routing, 

I do.

> 2)      Are there any technical issues with this draft? 

Minor comments as part of a re-read while waiting on my plane:
RESERVED is not called out in its behavior.  Some place in the document
should mention the usual "MUST be set to zero on send, SHOULD be ignored on
receipt".  Otherwise, it's gibberish in, who knows what out when someone
tries to use this field in the future.

There are a number of TLV value fields that may be of variable lengths.  In
many cases, those lengths are inherited from the underlying IGP documents.
What is not documented is the behavior when the TLV is well formed but has
unexpected length values.  Two simple examples:
- Prefix Attribute Flag TLV; varies by IGP
- Preference TLV; must be 1.

Do we treat this as malformed?  Do we ignore the sub-tlv?


> 
> 3)      Is this draft is ready for publication? 

Largely.

-- Jeff