Re: [Idr] Shepherd report on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-00

[Susan Hares <[e-mail]>]

Ketan:

Adrian asked me to do some double checking on these code points.  My time to do this double checking is Tuesday morning (10/24). I will send you and Adrian my review at that time.

Thanks for your patience and help as we clear out the early allocation issues.

I’m afraid today I must finish the Flowspec v2 revision before draft deadline.

Sue

From: Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 7:03 AM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Shepherd report on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-00

Hi Sue/All, We've just posted an update that includes changes to address the shepherd review as discussed in the thread below: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-02
External ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
  Report This Email<https://protection.inkyphishfence.com/report?id=bmV0b3JnMTA1ODY5MTIvc2hhcmVzQG5kemguY29tL2QwYjlkMzY0NTZiYjFhNGZmMzEzMzk4Nzg0ZDc4NGM3LzE2OTgwNTg5OTAuODQ=#key=f269d3872a1f00f635cb59ebbdee2103>  FAQ<https://www.godaddy.com/help/report-email-with-advanced-email-security-40813>  GoDaddy Advanced Email Security, Powered by INKY<https://www.inky.com/protection-by-inky>

Hi Sue/All,

We've just posted an update that includes changes to address the shepherd review as discussed in the thread below:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-02<https://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=datatracker.ietf.org&t=h.eJxFjksSgyAQRK-SYh1EFBVceZWRAbXET8FkkaRy90g2WfSmu96rfrNHDKy_sZnoTL0QCAQUwa4uFosjXxxxEnhYMdMWBEbwxHPPF4x8nE4eEk-Rn0dY7JOXFbvf2JqFu6MLlWWjWyMrkWaILg07vubCHpvAcjRYt6ppx1GC8r6WdW10pxVesZ2QrdEXbExZaJWtLltXR7DT79kwbbCELMsr5vXffL4NMkNy.MEUCIQDMIxJyVG3fMLM8_7stLz_Xqz2rhfh5BzJ6pDm04b7FnwIgcSy_hwOvpVpFIQiJPcBp-FJpKeC5eIJ3l5PiZRnu5-E>

We are awaiting the IANA allocation for the pending code-points in this document and will start preparation of the implementation report once the code-points are available.

Thanks,
Ketan


On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 4:55 PM Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Sue,

As indicated during the presentation during IETF 117, the authors would like to request allocations for the pending code points for this draft as follows:

1214 (suggested) SR Segment List Identifier

1215 (suggested) SR Bidirectional Group Constraint

1216 (suggested) SR Metric Constraint

1217 (suggested) SR Segment List Bandwidth

This will help us start preparation of implementation reports for this draft as well.

Also, thanks for your review and please check inline below for responses.


On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 4:02 PM Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
This is a shepherd report for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-00.

This draft will need to be adjusted after draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy is split into two drafts.

KT> I am not sure that would be necessary. That draft was about BGP SR Policy SAFI and this is BGP-LS SAFI - they are different and independent.


Why?: draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy is an informative reference.

KT> There is no normative dependence on the BGP SR Policy SAFI document. This BGP-LS draft is about (northbound) advertisement of SR Policies from routers (headend) to controllers. The source of the SR Policy on the headend could be local configuration (e.g., via CLI, Netconf, etc.) or via protocols PCEP or BGP SR Policy SAFI.


Other-things to fix:

Section 5.2 –

U-flag – specify what the flag means when the bit is zero.

KT> When clear it indicates that this CP is using the specified BSID. This flag is ignored when there is no specified BSID. Will include this in the next update.


Section 7.0

Thank you for putting RFC7752bis in this document.
I recommend you consider adding a bit more text prior to WG LC.
Consider issues on rapid change and detection.

KT> Could you please elaborate a bit more on this? There is nothing of the nature of "statistics" or "counters" that are being advertised here which could change rapidly. This is quite similar to protocol state - albeit related to SR Policies.


Section 9.0

This section needs upgrading to present the likely problems.
At least you should consider what RFC7752bis issues have been closed.

KT> Agree. Will update this section for the next update.

Thanks,
Ketan


I will add this to the early review queue as soon as the draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy is completed.

Cheers,  Sue