Re: [Idr] IPR and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions (11/1 to 11/16)

["Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dhruv,

Thanks again for your review and an updated version has been posted to address your comments.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-04

Thanks,
Ketan

-----Original Message-----
From: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 13 November 2020 11:30
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; idr wg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] IPR and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions (11/1 to 11/16)

Hi Ketan,

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 11:11 AM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Dhruv,
>
> Thanks for your review and ack for all the comments except the last one on the references. The IGP specs have been traditionally used as normative in BGP-LS and so I would prefer to keep it that way here too.
>

I am all for traditions :) but IMHO they were normative in the other BGP-LS documents because one needs to "normatively" refer to them to know the encoding and understand the meaning of the various fields. I don't see that here. Hope this helps to understand why I asked to re-evaluate this, rest is up to you!

Thanks!
Dhruv

> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Idr <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
> Sent: 13 November 2020 10:36
> To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
> Cc: idr wg <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Idr] IPR and WG LC for 
> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions (11/1 to 11/16)
>
> Hi WG,
>
> I support publication, the extension is useful and the document clear.
>
> Just a few nits -
>
> - Expand LSP, PW, iBGP, eBGP on first use
> - s/Type: 1032/Type: 1032 (early allocated by IANA)/
> - Section 4, you have -
>
>    The S-BFD Discriminators TLV can only be added to the BGP-LS
>    Attribute associated with the Node NLRI that originates the
>    corresponding underlying IGP TLV/sub-TLV as described below.
>
> and then the next paragraph -
>
>    When the node is not running any of the IGPs but running a protocol
>    like BGP, ...
>
> I suggest removing the "only" as it adds to confusion as non-IGP cases are allowed as well.
>
> - Check if RFC7883 and RFC7884 are better suited as informative.
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 8:14 AM Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > This begins a 2 week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions (11/1 to 11/16).
> >
> > This is the second WG LC call since the initial call had only 1 reponse besides the authors.
> >
> >
> >
> > You can access the draft at:
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensio
> > ns
> > /
> >
> >
> >
> > We have a report of draft has 1 implementation from Nokia:
> >
> > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-exten
> > si
> > ons%20implementations
> >
> >
> >
> > We are missing IPR statements from Sam Aldrin and Greg Minsky.
> >
> > The co-authors should encourage these authors to submit IPR 
> > statements
> >
> > by Tuesday (11/3/2020).
> >
> >
> >
> > In your responses please consider the following questions:
> >
> > a) Do you know any issues with this technology?
> >
> > b) Will this technology help BGP-LS deployments?
> >
> > c) Is this draft ready for publication?
> >
> >
> >
> > If you know of any additional implementations, please
> >
> > send email to the WG chairs or respond to this email
> >
> > with the information.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers, Susan Hares
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Idr mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr