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

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

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