[Idr] Shepherd's report for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-05.txt
Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Fri, 19 February 2021 20:07 UTC
Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 912F53A1466; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 12:07:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.358
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.358 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.4, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id duZ0S2iTWGks; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 12:07:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C8803A1353; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 12:07:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=50.107.98.72;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: idr@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext@ietf.org, ketant@cisco.com
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 15:06:52 -0500
Message-ID: <005101d706fa$c9474200$5bd5c600$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0052_01D706D0.E0764310"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdcG+p4VCRvxBqGnRmahbqmyLqXKBw==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 210219-4, 02/19/2021), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vn4v2sxI_5uLKGqY12JCCJN4MvU>
Subject: [Idr] Shepherd's report for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-05.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 20:07:15 -0000
Guarav, Ketan, Fils, Mach, Daniel, Bruno: First of all thank you for your hard work on refining draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-05.txt. I'm glad to have this draft in the SRv6 family. This shepherd report is a combination of my review and a review done by Haibo Wang. As you recall, I asked for SR-Reviews to review SR drafts in addition to the document shepherds. I've indicated Haibo's comments in my review. I appreciate his help in reviewing this IDR draft. I'm working this weekend in case you want me to review any changes before the draft deadline on Monday. Cheers, Sue ============ Issues are marked with levels: major or minor Resolution is marked as: Mandatory or recommended Issue #1: ======== Location: Section 1: paragraph 3, sentence Issue: Major Change: Mandatory Original Text: /BGP (I-D.ietf.bess-srv6-services)) has been extended to advertise some of these SRV6 SIDs and SRv6-related information./ Problem description: The reference to this bess draft means that you must support all the features within the draft. Specifically, if you are indicating support for the EVPN sections of this draft you are more likely to hit the issues described in section 4.9 of draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-05.txt. If you wish to keep this text, you have two options: Option 1) Replace RFC7752 references with RFC7752bis and make appropriate changes Or Option 2) Keep dependency on RFC7752 and change the last paragraph of section 10. For option 2, I provide you with sample text change below. This text is just a example. Old Text/The extensions, specified in this document, do not introduce any new configuration or monitoring aspects in BGP or BGP-LS other than discussed in [RFC7752]./ New text:/The extensions, specified in this document, do not introduce any new configuration, monitoring or error handle aspects of BGP or BGP-LS other than those discussed in [RFC7752] and [RFC7752bis]. In some use cases for topologies that might be used for draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services EVPN, the error handling in [RFC7752bis] section 4.9 may be necessary to handle the combination of unreachable IGP nodes, BGP-LS with certain BGP Peer topologies, and service requirements of VPN applications./ =============================================================== Issue 2: Location: Section 3.1, page 6, figure 2 What changes: Addition to field to clearly show Reserved fields Issue: minor Change: Recommended Problem: Text unclear without reserve word Old text/ 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |O| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / New text/ 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |O| Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ========================================= Issue 3: Location: Section 4.1, page 8, bullet beginning "Endpoint Behavior" Issue: Major Change: Mandatory Problem: section 9 is security considerations in [draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] Perhaps you mean section 4 (SR EndPoint descriptions) or section 10.2 or 10.2.1 with the Initial registrations for SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors. Old Text: /End point Behavior: 2 octet field. The Endpoint Behavior code Point for this SRV6 SID is defined in section 9.2 of [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] / New Text /End point Behavior: 2 octet field. The Endpoint Behavior code Point for this SRV6 SID is defined in section 10.2 of [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] / ======================= Issue 4: Location: Section 4.2, figure 4, page 8 Type: minor Status: Recommended Old-Text/ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |B|S|P| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / New-Text/ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |B|S|P| Reserved| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / ============= Issue 5: Location: section 4.2, page 9, paragraph 1 Status: Major Change: Mandatory to improve text Reviewers: [Haibo Wang and Susan Hares] Old/Text chapter 4.2 SRv6 LAN End.X SID TLV. For a LAN interface, normally an IGP node only announces its adjacency to the IS-IS pseudo-node (or the equivalent OSPF DR). The SRv6 LAN End.X SID TLV allows a node to announce SRv6 SID corresponding to behaviors like END.X [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] for its adjacencies to all other (i.e. non-DIS or non-DR) nodes attached to the LAN in a single instance of the BGP-LS Link NLRI. Without this TLV, multiple BGP-LS Link NLRI would need to be originated for each additional adjacency in order to advertise the SRv6 End.X SID TLVs for these neighbor adjacencies. / Hares Comments: This paragraph is unclear. It needs to be rewritten. [WangHaibo] suggests a way to approach this text: 1. I suggest to first describe the behavior of the LAN End.X SID explicitly, such as "each LAN End.X SID is used to specify the cross-connect to one adjacency node attached to the LAN". Then describe how to encode the LAN End.X SID TLVs with the Link NLRI corresponding to the adjacency to DIS or DR. ========== Issue 6: Location: section 4.2., p. 10, bullet beginning EndPoint Behavior Issue: Major Change: Mandatory Problem: Section 9 is in the security section. If you mean section 10.2, then the text change would be Old Text/section 9.2 of [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] New text/section 10.2 of [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]/ ======== Issue 7: Location: section 4.2, figure 6 Issue: Minor Problem: figure unclear without reserved words Change: Recommended Old text: / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |B|S|P| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / New text:/ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |B|S|P| Reserved| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ======== Issue 8: Location: section 5.1, figure 8 Issue: Minor Problem: figure unclear without reserved words Change: Recommended Old text: / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |D| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ New text:/ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |D| Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ====== Issue 9: Location: 2. SRv6 SID NLRI Status: Major Changes: Some textual change is mandatory Problem: [Wang Habio comments] Now the BGP EPE Peer Node info is advertised with SRv6 SID NLRI, it cause[s] some disadvantages compared to SR-MPLE EPE. First, the number of NLRIs needed for SRv6 EPE may be more than MPLS EPE. This is because the NLRI's key is SRv6 SID, but for one EPE Peer node, there may be multiple SIDs, such as End.x with PSP, End.x with USD etc. Second, with MPLS EPE, for a direct EBGP Peer, only one NLRI is needed to advertise the link and its Peer node SID, link attributes. But with the current method for SRv6 EPE, at least two NLRIs are needed, one is the SRv6 SID NLRI for the Peer Node SID, the other is a Link NLRI with the End.X SID (the SID value may be the same while need to be advertised in different NLRIs) and link attributes.. At current stage maybe it is not suitable to change the encoding, but I suggest to give more detail description about the behavior of advertising the SRv6 Peer node SID and the Peer adjacency SID with corresponding NLRIs for a direct peer and for a peer established on loopback. [Hares] Solution possibilities: a) provide text in section 6 prior to NLRI format b) create section in manageability section providing more details If have questions on this request for clarifying information, send email to me, Haibo, or the list. ========= Issue 10: Status: Major Change: Mandatory Location: 7.1, bullet point that starts "Endpoint Behavior" Old text/section 9.2 of [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]/ New text / section 10.2 of [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]/ ======== Issue 11: page 17, Figure 13 Problem: reserved fields Type: Minor Status: Recommended Old Text/ Location: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |B|S|P| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 13: SRv6 BGP Peer End.X SID TLV Flags Format / NewText/ Location: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |B|S|P| Reserved| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 13: SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV Flags Format / [Hares comment: Clearly specifying Reserved Fields in figure helps the reader. [Wang Haibo comment:] [comment]As Figure 13 is about the Flags of SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV, its name may be changed to SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV Flags Format ========== Location: Section 12: Manageability section Praise: Thank you for mentioning the sematic or content checking is left to the consumer of the BGP-LS information. ============
- [Idr] Shepherd's report for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] Shepherd's report for draft-ietf-idr-bg… Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)