Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt - WG consensus pending

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Ketan:

 

Thank you for the reminder.  I am reviewing the document and the shepherd's
report this morning.   

 

Sue Hares 

 

From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 1:14 PM
To: Susan Hares; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt
- WG consensus pending

 

Hi Sue,

 

We have published the v06 last week. There have been no further
implementation report updates (besides the two that were done previously).

 

Could you please review the draft and implementation report updates for the
draft progression?

 

Thanks,

Ketan

 

From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 15 August 2019 20:46
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt
- WG consensus pending

 

The WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt has completed.


 

The authors should 

1.	Submit draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-06.txt 
2.	Complete the Wiki page on the implementations. 

 

At that point, the Shepherd report can be completed, and the draft sent to
Alvaro for review. 

 

Cheerily, Sue 

From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 11:17 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt
- WG consensus pending

 

Ketan: 

 

Thank you for this response.   Please send me a note when you begin you have
completed -06.txt, 

and any updates. 

 

I encourage other implementers to either update the web page

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ms
d%20implementations

 

or to send information to the WG chairs. 

 

Cheerily, Susan Hares 

 

 

From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 7:07 AM
To: Susan Hares; 'IDR'
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt - WG
consensus pending 

 

Hi Sue/All,

 

The authors are working on the update and we'll post it once done/ready.

 

I've updated the implementation report with most of the items that you have
suggested for the implementations that I am aware of. For the error handling
part, since that text would get added in v06, we can look at that aspect
after the posting is done.

 

I believe there are other implementations and would request WG members to
update the same at
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ms
d%20implementations

 

Thanks,

Ketan

 

From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 07 August 2019 22:54
To: 'IDR' <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt - WG
consensus pending 

 

The WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt concludes on
8/8/2019.

 

At this point, we have about 12 people who have participated in this last
call by making comments.   All comments regarding publication appear to be
positive.   If you wish to make additional comments, please make your
comments by 8/8/2019. 

 

The implementations come from a single vendor (cisco).  A 1 week query will
be made (starting on 8/8/2019)  to determine if the WG will accept 2
implementations from the same vendor to meet IDR requirement for 2
implementations.  

 

The authors of this draft (Jeff,  Uma, Ketan, Greg, Nikos) need to do the
following: 

1.	Post an -06.txt  revision that addresses any comments received at
IETF 105 or on the WG list, 
2.	Upgrade the interoperability report at 

 
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ms
d%20implementations

 

With details on the following MUST Clause support 

 

Reference are:  section 3  

 

      *  MSD-Value : a number in the range of 0-255.  For all MSD-Types,

         0 represents the lack of ability to impose an MSD stack of any

         depth; any other value represents that of the node.  This value

         MUST represent the lowest value supported by any link

         configured for use by the advertising protocol instance.] 

Reference in section 4: - a similar definition 

      *  MSD-Value : a number in the range of 0-255.  For all MSD-Types,
         0 represents the lack of ability to impose an MSD stack of any
         depth; any other value represents that of the link when used as
         an outgoing interface.] 

 

 

Expected addition to Wiki document is the following information

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Support for zero MSD-value:   

    Node MSD TLV:  yes/no

    Link MSD TLV: yes/no

 

Mechanism for reporting zero-value: 

      

Error handling of MSD TLV  (according to RFC7752):    

  Node MSD TLV:  yes/no 

  Link MSD TLV :    yes /no 

 

 

Mechanism for reporting errors on MSD TLV:  (log error in log file)