Re: [Idr] Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/20) - Adoption of draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-05.txt and draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17.txt

["Ahmed Abdelsalam (ahabdels)" <[e-mail]>]

HI Susan,
Please find my answers tagged with [AA]
1. Do you agree or disagree that these two drafts are functionally identical?
[AA] Even though the functionally identical. BGP CAR offers more extensible and very well-structured route format.

2. If you agree, should we have just one draft or do the operational difference encourage us to have two drafts?
[AA] I would encourage adopting only one draft (the BGP CAR draft).

3. If you disagree, do the functional differences encourage us to have one or two drafts adopted?
 [AA] I support the adoption of the BGP CAR. I think there is no need to adopt CT draft.

Thanks
Ahmed
From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 18 July 2022 at 14:48
To: Ahmed Abdelsalam (ahabdels) <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Idr] Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/20) - Adoption of draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-05.txt and draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17.txt
Ahmend:
Thank you for providing us your input.
Would you mind also answering the following three questions:

  1.  Do you agree or disagree that these two drafts are functionally identical?
  2.  If you agree, should we have just one draft or do the operational difference encourage us to have two drafts?
  3.  If you disagree, do the functional differences encourage us to have one or two drafts adopted?
Thank you, Sue
From: Ahmed Abdelsalam (ahabdels) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 8:05 AM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/20) - Adoption of draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-05.txt and draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17.txt


Hi WG, WG chairs,
I support the adoption of draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car.
The draft provides a solution that offers extensible and very well-structured route format. In addition, it has interoperable multi-vendor implementations.
Thanks
Ahmed
From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, 6 July 2022 at 20:16
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [Idr] Part 2 of CAR/CT Adoption call (7/6 to 7/20) - Adoption of draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-05.txt and draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17.txt
This begins a 2-week WG Adoption call (7/6/2022 to 7/20/2022) for the following drafts:

  1.  draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-05.txt

(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car/)

  1.  draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes-17.txt

(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-idr-bgp-classful-transport-planes/)
The associated drafts may be useful in your consideration.
CAR:

  1.  draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-22

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy/



  1.  draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy/



  1.  draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-problem-statement-05.txt

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-problem-statement/
CT

  1.  draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr-06.txt

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr/



  1.  draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute-02.txt

(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-idr-multinexthop-attribute/)



  1.  draft-kaliraj-bess-bgp-sig-private-mpls-labels-04

(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kaliraj-bess-bgp-sig-private-mpls-labels/)


You may discuss adoption of one or both the main drafts (CAR or Classful-Transport (CT)) in your response, and the associate drafts.
A few caveats on your discussion:

1.       Please do not worry whether the drafts belong in BESS or IDR.

Both BESS and IDR work on creating relevant quality standards in BGP,

and the chairs will work this out.



2.       The IDR has spent time over 2020-2022 discussing these drafts.

For background information, see the following links below.

You can refer to these previous presentations or email discussions in your responses.



3.       Please constrain your discussion to whether these drafts should be adopted.

I’ve started another email thread on whether path establishment/distribution

for a color (aka QOS/SLA/Transport Class) should be done via a

specific BGP route (i.e., per-color NLRI) rather than as per-color attributes on a route.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/FhoK04HsSy9tR7ioV7AD0Vv6Ir4/

Questions (to consider) for these drafts:
Jeff Haas (IDR Co-chair) posted a summary on March 21, 2022 that for
route resolution and route origination/propagation, BGP-CAR and BGP-CT are functionally identical,
but operationally different.
    ( https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/e69NRd9i2aG0WUxFkShEfQHZsHo/

  1.  Do you agree or disagree that these two drafts are functionally identical?
  2.  If you agree, should we have just one draft or do the operational difference encourage us to have two drafts?
  3.  If you disagree, do the functional differences encourage us to have one or two drafts adopted?