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

["Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Sunnyvale)" <[e-mail]>]

I support draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car for WG adoption.
>From an NLRI encoding perspective, BGP CAR is a natural evolution of BGP LU, and allows for future extensibility. I believe BGP CAR is on the right track and it should be adopted by the WG. I also think the VPN encoding and use of RDs and route-targets proposed by BGP CT is not the right fit for a BGP transport AFI/SAFI.

  1.  Do you agree or disagree that these two drafts are functionally identical?
I agree


  1.  If you agree, should we have just one draft or do the operational difference encourage us to have two drafts?
One draft. It would simplify things.


  1.  If you disagree, do the functional differences encourage us to have one or two drafts adopted?

Thanks.
Jorge

From: Idr <[e-mail]> on behalf of Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 8:17 PM
To: [e-mail] <[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:

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

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

·         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:

·         draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-22

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



·         draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18

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



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

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

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

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



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

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



·         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?