Re: [Idr] Weekly status 5/2/2019

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Thu, 30 May 2019 15:26 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
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 161A31200EB for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2019 08:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 lVWd4-72k1yu for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2019 08:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-100-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C334612013B for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2019 08:26:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=174.124.223.16;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, <idr@ietf.org>
References: <00fd01d500ea$e8709fe0$b951dfa0$@ndzh.com> <039101d516ee$d6b1c620$84155260$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <039101d516ee$d6b1c620$84155260$@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 11:26:41 -0400
Message-ID: <005801d516fc$159c1d60$40d45820$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0059_01D516DA.8E8CEE60"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQI3cxoAp+Zyr7LrJqeQ1oTG1h1gogKCAB32pasBmNA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 190530-0, 05/30/2019), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/suSa0Z7T0i8JXzo6UmGS1A71Ydk>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Weekly status 5/2/2019
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 30 May 2019 15:26:49 -0000

Adrian:

 

Thank you for this change to the draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane in
version -10.txt.  This text provides very error handling. 

 

Sue 

 

From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 9:52 AM
To: 'Susan Hares'; idr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Idr] Weekly status 5/2/2019

 

Hi Sue,

 

Wrt your item 1)b)7 on draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-10.

 

The authors have been discussing this and have agreed:

 

OLD

   [RFC5575] defines a set of BGP routes that can be used to identify

   the packets in a given flow using fields in the header of each

   packet, and a set of actions, encoded as extended communities, that

   can be used to disposition those packets.  This document enables the

   use of RFC 5575 mechanisms by SFC Classifiers by defining a new

   action extended community called "Flow Spec for SFC classifiers"

   identified by the value TBD4.  Note that other action extended

   communities may also be present.

NEW

    [RFC5575]  and [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis] define a set of BGP routes

    that can be used to identify the packets in a given flow using fields

    in the header of each packet, and a set of actions, encoded as

    extended communities, that can be used to disposition those

    packets.  This document enables the use of these mechanisms by

    SFC Classifiers by defining a new action extended community called

    "Flow Spec for SFC Classifiers" identified by the value TBD4.  Note

    that other action extended communities MUST NOT be present at

    the same time: the inclusion of the "Flow Spec for SFC Classifiers"

    action extended community along with any other action MUST be 

    treated as an error which SHOULD result in the Flow Specification

    UPDATE message being handled as Treat-as-withdraw according to

    [RFC7606] Section 2.

END

 

Best,

Adrian

 

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: 02 May 2019 14:28
To: idr@ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] Weekly status 5/2/2019

 

Greetings idr - 

 

To make sure IDR stays on track until IETF 105, I will be sending out weekly
status updates.   Please let me know if these status updates are helpful. 

 

Cheerily, Sue Hares 

 

Status as of 5/2/2019 

-------------

Drafts in adoption process: 

   The following 3 drafts have no objections and solid reasons behind
adoption.  

    The chairs will be reviewing these drafts and send out comments on
5/3/2019. 

 

1.	draft-ketant-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attrib [4/16-4/30] -   
2.	draft-li-idr-bgpls-ls-sbfd-extensions -  [4/18 - 5/2]
3.	draft-ketant-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo -  [4/16 - 4/30]
4.	draft-wu-idr-bgp-segment-allocation-ext - [4/18 - 5/2]  - extended
to 5/9 
5.	draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext - [5/2 to 5/16] 

 

The authors of wu-idr-bgp-segment-allocation should start 

a discussion to determine all issues have been cleared. 

 

Flow Specification drafts

--------------------------

1.       Flow-specification base draft:  RFC5575bis 

   Please review John Scudder's call for input on the mail list 

   regarding the 4 implementation lack of support for:  

a.       packet rate in bytes, and 

b.      error handling and future NLRI 

 

Flow-specification draft authors should update their documents to include
RFC5575bis.  

These drafts include: 

1.	draft-ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-oid.txt
2.	draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn-09.txt
3.	draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-04.txt 
4.	draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect
5.	draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-interfaceset 
6.	draft-ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-label
7.	draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-10

 

I may have missed another flowpec draft.  If so, would the authors please
send me a note. 

I would like to start WG LC for flow specification drafts on May 5th. 

 

WG LC

1.	RFC8203bis - [5/6 to 5/20]  

Status: Awaiting IPR statement (from John Scudder) 

   

Early allocations calls 

------------------------------

no objection noted in the emails, these will be forward to Alvaro and IANA
for early allocation: 

1.       draft-ietf-idr-nvo3-flowspec-04  -  

2.       draft-ietf-idr-l2vpn-09.txt   -   

3.       draft draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution  

 

Early allocation call in progress, but some questions in email. 

4.       draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy [4/30 to 5/14/2019]

 

 

Chairs/Shepherds 

Shepherd write-ups pending (watch for email on 5/3) 

1.	draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-30 [Sue Hares shepherd]
2.	draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria [Sue Hares shepherd]

 

If you have any final comments, please send implementation reports and
comments to the shepherd. 

 

The following drafts are undergoing active shepherd engagement

1.	draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-11  [John Scudder]
2.	draft-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection [John Scudder]