[Idr] Re: Concluded: WG Adoption call for draft-hegdearavind-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-ext, ends 31 October, 2025.

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

< speaking only as a co-author and not on behalf of my co-authors >

+ LSR WG chairs

Hi Jeff,

This document started as a "catch-up" for BGP-LS encoding for the more
recent FlexAlgo IGP extensions as indicated by Aravind.

Now, more extensions are coming up and ideally the BGP-LS encodings could
be covered in those LSR WG documents with some relatively small text
updates to avoid the need for separate BGP-LS documents in IDR. This is not
always the case, but probably is for these 2 newer documents that Aravind
identifies. Personally, this would be my preference.

On the other side, it is up to the IDR WG to choose between "closing" this
document quickly or waiting until some smallish finite time to cover other
LSR FlexAlgo related specs. I would request the IDR chairs to weigh in.

Thanks,
Ketan


On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 8:46 AM Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Aravind,
>
> > On Nov 10, 2025, at 11:37 AM, Aravind Babu MahendraBabu (aramahen) <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > Thanks for adopting the draft.
> > draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-ext-00 has been posted and pending on
> chair's approval.
>
> This has been cleared through the queue.
>
> If there's an associated github, let's get that also linked to the draft.
>
> >
> > Regarding the state of the Flex-algo work in LSR, the following are
> already covered as part of this draft.
> >       • RFC 9502
> >       • RFC 9843
> >       • draft-ietf-lsr-igp-flex-algo-reverse-affinity [In WG-LC]
>
> Excellent news.  That means we could progress this document quickly!
>
> >
> > The below are the recent and related updates in LSR which we plan to add
> to the draft.
> >       • draft-ietf-lsr-flex-soft-dataplane
> >       • draft-ietf-lsr-algorithm-related-adjacency-sid
>
> Not excellent news - this is scope creep that wasn't part of the original
> adoption cycle.
>
> I can see on a brief flip through of these drafts on how they are also
> "algorithm associated".  In the case of the later one, it seems to be
> through several LSR revisions.  However, the former one has just hit -00 in
> LSR.
>
> What's the authors' case for holding up publication on the first three
> items in the first part of this message for these two new items?  Are they
> so tightly bound that it makes sense to only advance them together?  If so,
> what's the trajectory to publish the latter two drafts?
>
>
> -- Jeff
>
>