Re: [Idr] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15

Alvaro Retana <> Fri, 14 December 2018 17:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38A3D1311CD; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 09:55:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AfldR9FCmjot; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 09:55:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::332]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 094721311C9; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 09:55:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id v23so6180895otk.9; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 09:54:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=X0ANVRJJyOCmIqm7fagpimZ9raalcuu3UPpS9hVnWbM=; b=GK+HEuYETLIDtBs2Mclc9A7wLtn5qNKPRA9Hd60ymc1rj4+b4kTIgVppYjRUfxTjIT kRPyVSVxB8bfcnAEa5QNWJG5JWZZQ/sZFwqAlH+ut4uKGRMrxb6COot+Frire7ujQJfC oIz5eZlsfd7iuzoQeskXByLKactwja8DT8fD5a15Es1a6ZJHvujwvqQ4CiWAIXOcHkhG QBJcvhT3aPBfHIqnzRTA7vdK7RN5SZZIMsiSYfRH16qYWlJg3hTuT085oktGy2kiRpq2 jAE5voTCWs2X8Fw117Z7RuGIehw8amhZNs73F8wXXeZQNten6cT7BtQItJQOtOCRrpSZ sW7Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=X0ANVRJJyOCmIqm7fagpimZ9raalcuu3UPpS9hVnWbM=; b=d+eG7QZz4b/KDmomAJ4IxzzEDE/6+jQzqnnCmI8goAWoJAJIQGZ5JgwwS/bA4Dp5rO c0pqkeq7gKYGi4MVqaNaWnr/LgwBcizaNWcqRwISiSGH9VALEeHZrvVZcqUojXAAaBgF ETdHaWCnZjK+IUimSjmmQbjYClCRUcMhZy2lJM2uTu5BnPmSyR7yiWgs8k3WuS/ttSD3 AYWxescs2+IMnpU7kirLO+xpsDoRrh7KHm9bUb7MRAVZdhJWuf6eDDtGcWd6iHLoJ6zO aeCx5NfNfNMrZvro/QOaR3miZlf6tT4YkyMtNmoKAHDXKnysCuI/ebBReuwDvAK7CXYr sPRg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWYwAp+2Ht4nlfjNA+eH8qRvbRhEtKTCuVn+jDs7GqCl8VLjFdPK mNzJIBNz2rfDPEUoDkMXL7FTQbOcr9a+nqgoiKQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/UIaMqFCmKCwxbse2VCfcavIQCxzvSfPaR2WbG59DI5nXycnJM1ZCpXuae2Wwg6g8zM6j8LQv97kXwHlcmkX9k=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:4f0c:: with SMTP id d12mr2853420otl.302.1544810099338; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 09:54:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 09:54:58 -0800
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <006a01d493bc$31912ec0$94b38c40$>
References: <> <> <> <> <006a01d493bc$31912ec0$94b38c40$>
X-Mailer: Airmail (528)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 09:54:58 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Susan Hares <>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <>, Yoshifumi Nishida <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003771e1057cff2180"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 17:55:02 -0000

On December 14, 2018 at 9:49:28 AM, Susan Hares ( wrote:



I think we might be talking about two different things…or I got lost, which
is completely possible. :-)

I think Yoshi is asking about the format of the TLVs, which happens to be
the same as the OSPF ones (rfc7471), but slightly different than ISIS
(rfc7810bis): the type and length fields are different.  I had already
pointed this out in my AD review, so the text changed from "The semantic of
the TLV is described in [RFC7810] and [RFC7471]” (in -14) to "The semantics
of the value field in the TLV are described in
[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis] and [RFC7471]” (in -15)…and the text about
"TLV formats follow the rules defined in [RFC7752]” was added, as Les
pointed out.  I think this is enough.

When you say "align with IGP TLVs”, are you talking about the format of the
TLV, or are you referring to something else?

In some BGP-LS document I’ve seen tables that map the BGP-LS TLVs to the
corresponding ISIS/OSPF TLVs — with the understanding that the format is
different.  One such example is in §2.4/2.5
of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext [1].  Is that the alignment
you’re asking about?  If so, then I think that such a table would be useful.




You both raised two sides of the issue regarding the BGP-LS TLVs when these
TLVs align with IGP TLVs.

Side 1: It is helpful to note that the TLVs are the same

Side 2: It is confusing to have this information in individual drafts.

This is not a single draft issue but a concern regarding several drafts in
the BGP-LS series from IDR.

Yoshi -  Would it help the clarity of the BGP-LS series to have an
explanatory draft that indicates the places to find the alignment?  Or
should we suggest a note to IANA registration to provide clarity.

Thank you for raising both sides of this issue.   Your IDR chairs and AD
have been discussing how to make this easier to understand for implementers
and those who deploy the BGP-LS code.