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

[Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>]

Hi Authors,

I have several comments on this draft:

1. In the introduction:
I believe “Segment Identifier (SID) is often used as a shorter reference for "SRv6 Segment". ”  is not correct.

2. In section 3.1:
The O-bit has dependency on I-D.ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam. IMO, this cannot pass the LC before ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam.
And is there any other flag?

3. There are several use of “A SRv6 SID” in the draft. I think it should be “An SRv6 SID”.

4. In section 8:
You introduced the SID Structure TLV only with the format. It seems interesting.
I would like to see more text on this. For example, what’s the usage, how to deal with it, what’s the fault process.

Thanks,
Tianran


From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 12:29 AM
To: 'Acee Lindem (acee)' <acee=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] IPR call and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

Acee:

Thank you  for noting that the URL is incorrect.   The correct URL is at:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext/

Sue


From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 7:58 AM
To: Susan Hares; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: 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, IDR WG,
I support publication of the document. Note that the URL below is for the flex-algo BGP-LS draft.
Thanks,
Acee

From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Sunday, November 1, 2020 at 10:26 PM
To: IDR List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [Idr] IPR call and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

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