Re: [Idr] IPR call and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

Hi Sue, WG,

The SRv6 work for BGP-LS is important and I support its publication. I
do have some comments which I hope will improve the I-D:

Major
- Regarding the various flag fields in the I-D. Should we redefine
them here or refer to the IGP documents? I see they match with
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions. For the SR-MPLS draft (in
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext) the approach was to use a
reference to the ISIS draft.

Minor
- Section 2, use of normative SHALL for the restatting the text coming
from RFC 7752 is incorrect.
- Section 2, add reference for "MSD types introduced for SRv6" in this
section (on first use).
- Section 2 provides a good summary; for ease of reader, can you add a
forward reference to sections where each of the TLV is defined in this
I-D?
- Section 2, 2nd last paragraph, should this be normative regarding
the different behaviour for underlying IGP and BGP-EPE?
- Section 4.1, need reference for IGP Algorithm Type registry
- Section 4.2, add the tag Neighbor ID in the figure as well to match the text
- Section 6, we should say Protocol-ID is from RFC 7752, of which the
following are applicable for SRV6.
- Section 10/11, is some text missing here? Section 10 says it is
structured as per RFC5706 and has nothing. Section 11 has Operational
Considerations saying nothing new here! Missing  Management
Considerations as per RFC 5706.
- For reserved fields we use a mix of MUST and SHOULD regarding
setting it to zero, better to use MUST in all instances.

Query
- What is the best practice for the term End.X: Expand to Layer-3
Cross-Connect on first use or put a reference to
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming? Or is it considered
well-known in the context to be used directly.
- Various MUST conditions in the draft, but no idea what happens when
they are not met. Is this the legacy issue with RFC7752 and we need to
wait for the RFC7752bis?

Nits
- s/Segment Routing IPv6 (SRv6)/Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)/
- Expand SR, NLRI, MSD, DR, DIS, on first use.

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 8:55 AM Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
>
> This begins an IPR call and a 2 week WG LC for
>
> draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1 to 11/16/2020)
>
>
>
> You can access the draft at:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo/
>
>
>
> This draft focus on the BGP-LS support for SRv6.
>
> Spring has proposed the SRv6 support in RFC8402
>
> (see section 3.1.3 for mechanisms and section 8.2 for
>
> Security considerations).
>
>
>
> There are two implementations: Cisco and GoBGP
>
> You can see the implementation report at:
>
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext%20implementations
>
>
>
> In your responses, please consider the following questions:
>
> a) Is the SRv6 technology ready for deployment or
>
> are there known issues?
>
>
>
> b) Will SRv6 provide valuable support for
>
> deployments of BGP-LS in support of source routing
>
> (aka spring)?
>
>
>
> c) Is this draft ready for publication?
>
>
>
> If you know of additional implementations, please send
>
> a note to the idr chairs with the information or
>
> respond to this email.
>
>
>
> Cheers, Susan Hares
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr