Re: [Idr] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

I have uploaded V12 of the document which addresses the Editorial issue (#1 below).

I have also uploaded an implementation report - currently specifying the one known implementation.

   Les


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2018 11:49 PM
> To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp
> 
> Sue -
> 
> Thanx for the review.
> Responses inline.
> 
> From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2018 12:29 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>; draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp
> 
> Les, Stefano, Qin, Jeff, and Clarence:
> 
> This document is generally in excellent shape.   I note the following four
> things need to be fixed prior to submitting this to Alvaro Retana:
> 
> 
> 1)      Editorial:
> Page 3 states "Unidirectional Packet Loss", but section 3.4 says
> "Unidirectional Link Loss TLV"
> 
> Please fix this editorial error.  It is a requirement for sending to the IESG for
> publication
> 
> [Les:] I have changed these all to be "Link Loss' - consistent with RFC 7810.
> 
> 
> 2)      Security Section - Consider whether you want to add additional
> comments in your security section about the distribution of IGP TE
> information in BGP.   Even if the node inputted the data into BGP-LS has the
> appropriate permissions, BGP blindly sends this to the entire BGP
> infrastructure supporting BGP-LS guided only by policy set on nodes.  Is this
> what you want?
> 
> If so, I will forward this to the security directorate for their review.
> 
> 
> 
> [Les:] I am having some trouble understanding the motivation for your
> comment.
> 
> IGP TE information has been distributed via BGP-LS since RFC 7752. Why do
> you believe that the addition of the IGP TE information defined here requires
> additional security comments?
> 
> 
> 
> 3)      We do not have any implementations reported.
> 
> Please put the existence of the implementation on the BGP Wiki - under
> implementation reports.
> 
> [Les:] I have an implementation report for one Cisco implementation which I
> will post shortly. A second Cisco implementation is currently in progress.
> If other vendors have implementations that they wish to share I would
> appreciate it if they either contacted me or updated the wiki after I post the
> initial report.
> 
> 
> 4)      An IPR statement directly from Clarence Fils on this draft.  John
> approved the WG LC based on a related IPR statement, but I fear this will not
> be sufficient for the current IESG.  Please as Clarence to respond to this email
> with an IPR Statement.
> 
> [Les:] I have pinged Clarence on this - please expect a reply from him soon