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

stefano previdi <> Mon, 09 April 2018 07:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8E921273E2 for <>; Mon, 9 Apr 2018 00:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ADQUA6AapFW4 for <>; Mon, 9 Apr 2018 00:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9A9A12D941 for <>; Mon, 9 Apr 2018 00:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b127so16680939wmf.5 for <>; Mon, 09 Apr 2018 00:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=TWORa9WHztehqWIKjGvoqoq+n6ut74txRCwu8QAXlJc=; b=ei5UeOt5J0rRO/UqalAgCbmaXBwvRmyH+mvPopSPo/yHQ6KtaR7IvEUqxBFsDIUYVj LdwTuC3uf7PllnfTIN0Gl0F3/Gyh4JUkumiqwfsOjFL8EesrbnWw5f45tixnnXqvXvxf IBSLPkdJQ6WfPYxTtMIUNOmmv+GB/ufFEdzYcmiArdFU10MXCrb7xkjk8G1CkFXS8gmA nvp0CiBBLl1HoM0I6944ZRkBteGJvidrSjrJePMaM/ycrl6rl64020Ilaxkz+YmJpq10 JGSMi+n3URQF3D24ZS83Rb2le/nofw+ksnjcstdfSKez3EWMRVOUbmFnb41ppofwHmWq Zv7A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=TWORa9WHztehqWIKjGvoqoq+n6ut74txRCwu8QAXlJc=; b=EftydK5EX5DRN2774oBhkOSnJEe3OHG6eBb8ef5HSgDpuRL+Q5PNoXBzhtnA94uDZh gyiqGWj0EqviHgzZ4qOnOnHVFt/q372CY6ZUEPprtRzspjXN58HDVu3sEpbnF/E+N+Po p5CpbzDjrEZjHdFOtBFduW/BgxiY5aboPDEiWDw3wn5DYHbHbqJUvNiBieVeGCZtlLdP vtlYzlXmE8rviit89/jbk4pCHh6nhkawLY64JTCrC3mfmohRR6C4C4XAL/UXAIG6mbDg 2qgrEbXteCisaSyUO0nwbTfkeVFcQ7QAuddWPXQHJJBBkRHats/2V2EWBon8p3zjS6sp kZrw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7EAp2ikLS6ei1+pgTpdRwz18IPcWe49EFEn9YZFizrnjzfKvCZ/ 71F2jMsgjul8tNe9kEB3HEpMRkC0OI8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx49Da8D/fOcGZrssyxmSyM8Imo6ecg85VmStxPyPnQt20nGEe7rGOJCm24AXNXPHEb/Qo75JHA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id k190mr20829893wmd.154.1523259215238; Mon, 09 Apr 2018 00:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sprevidi-m-f0kt.station ( []) by with ESMTPSA id n20sm9458wmc.24.2018. (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Apr 2018 00:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
From: stefano previdi <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 09:34:22 +0200
Cc:, Hares Susan <>, idr wg <>, Jeffrey Haas <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <011201d3b633$0b5fee60$221fcb20$> <> <>
To: "John G. Scudder" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-04 (March 7 to March 21)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2018 07:33:40 -0000

Hi John,

I’m not aware of any undisclosed IPR related to this draft.


> On Apr 6, 2018, at 8:17 PM, John G. Scudder <> wrote:
> Hi Authors (and WG),
> Jeff raised two points during the WGLC:
>> On Mar 15, 2018, at 7:07 PM, Jeffrey Haas <> wrote:
>> 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.
> I didn't see this one addressed. Authors, do you plan to update the draft to address the point? I didn't see any other points raised during the WGLC that would require an update.
>> 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?
> This point was discussed between Jeff and Ketan on the list. It seems to me that it does bear further discussion, but that the issue doesn't need to be fixed in this draft nor to be blocking on the conclusion of the WGLC. Assuming the WG feels we should do better, the most obvious thing IMO would be a document that updates RFC 7752.
> Finally, authors and contributors, we forgot to ask for the usual IPR declaration as part of the WGLC. If you could please take care of letting us know whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has not been declared, that would help conclude the WGLC. (Right now there is no IPR declared,
> Thanks,
> --John