Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00 and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02 (2/15/2024 to 2/29/2024) - Extended 1 week to 3/7/2024

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Boris,

Thanks for your review and feedback. I will include an informative
reference to the BGP-LS SR Policy draft in the introduction. However, I am
not sure there is a need to use normative language as you suggest since the
operational state is conveyed via YANG as mentioned in section 8.

Thanks,
Ketan


On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 3:08 AM Boris Hassanov <bhassanov=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Sue and all,
>
> Being a bit late, but I anyway - I read both docs and support the
> publication. The 1st document will align the support for the other segments
> types, the 2nd one shows how much we already did including the
> implementations.
> I also support the latest variant about I-flag from Ketan.
> From the practical side (my implementation experience) I would also add to
> Section 5, something like this:
>
> The feedback from SRPM about a state  of received and verified SR Policy
> MAY be provided via  draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy or by some others,
> external or future defined means.
>
>
> SY,
> Boris
>
>
>
> On Saturday, March 2, 2024 at 03:26:59 PM GMT+3, Susan Hares <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> This call is extended 1 week to 3/7/2024 to allow others to comment on
> this call.
>
>
>
> Cheerily,
>
>
>
>
>
> Greetings IDR:
>
>
>
> This begins a 2-week WG LC on the following two drafts created from the
> text in
>
> draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18 - that the IDR WG approved for
> publication:
>
>
>
>
>
>   *   draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00  (proposed standard)
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/
>
>
>
>   *   draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02 (experimental)
>
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext/
>
>
>
> The Authors (per IETF policy) are asked to respond to this message with a
>
> message indicating whether they know of any undisclosed IPR as the
> documents stand now.
>
> Please note there are 3 IPR declarations on these drafts.
>
>
>
> History:
>
> ======
>
> After reviewing draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18, Andrew Alston
> (IDR RTG AD)
>
> asked that draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy be split into two
> parts because
>
> some segment types (C-L) did not have two implementations.
>
> Therefore, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srsegtypes-ext-02 contains the text for
>
> Segment types C-L.   This split has been discussed at IETF meetings.
>
>
>
> Since Andrew Alston had personally implemented this draft,
>
> he also asked for additional reviews on procedures.
>
>
>
> During this review, the procedures regarding the link to RFC9012 were
> improved.
>
>
>
> Issues in call:
>
> ============
>
> During the WG should note that the procedures specified in
>
> draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00 do the following:
>
>
>
>
>
>   1.  Only apply to the SR Policy Tunnel (15) + SR Policy SAFI
>
>   2.  Do not require any of the TLVs defined in RFC9012 for other tunnel
> types
>
>   3.  May ignore TLVs defined in RFC9012 for other tunnel types
>
>   4.  Do not use the validation process in RFC9012, and depend on the SRPM
> to validate content.
>
>   5.  Makes changes to Color Extended Community [RFC9012] to add to 2-bits
> [C, O]
>
>
>
> To support "color-only" (CO)  functions of section 8.8 of [RFC9256]
>
>
>
>
>
> C0 - type 0 (00) - Specific end-point match (Match endpoint that is BGP NH)
>
>          type 1 (01) - Specific or null end-point match (BGP NH or null
> (default gw))
>
>          type 2 (10) - Specific, null, or any end-point match (BGP NH,
> Null, or any endpoint)
>
>          type 3 (11) - Reserved
>
>
>
> The SR Policy Tunnel functions in this draft use BGP as a transport
> mechanism for the
>
> Information contained in the SR Policy.
>
>
>
> Please note that these procedures split the context validation away from
> the
>
> BGP module into the SRPM module.   This split is similar to the BGP-LS
> split
>
> syntax validation from context validation.
>
>
>
> There are multiple implementations of this technology as detailed at:
>
>
> https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/BGP-Implementation-report/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-implement
>
>
>
> The WG members are asked to confirm their agreement to the changes made in
> this document.
>
>
>
> If there are questions, please ask them on this mail thread.  Please note
> any errors in the call are mine (and not the authors).
>
>
>
> Cheerily, Sue
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>