[Idr] Re: Christopher Inacio's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-vpn-prefix-orf-44: (with COMMENT)

[Wei Wang <[e-mail]>]

Hi Christopher,


Thanks for your comments! Please see my in-line replies with [WW].


Best Regards,
Wei


         Original
         
       
From: Christopher Inacio via Datatracker <[e-mail]&gt;
Date: 2026-06-09 03:45
To: The IESG <[e-mail]&gt;
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-vpn-prefix-orf <[e-mail]&gt;, idr-chairs <[e-mail]&gt;, idr <[e-mail]&gt;, keyur <[e-mail]&gt;, shares <[e-mail]&gt;
Subject: [Idr] Christopher Inacio's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-vpn-prefix-orf-44: (with COMMENT)



       Christopher&nbsp;Inacio&nbsp;has&nbsp;entered&nbsp;the&nbsp;following&nbsp;ballot&nbsp;position&nbsp;for
draft-ietf-idr-vpn-prefix-orf-44:&nbsp;No&nbsp;Objection

When&nbsp;responding,&nbsp;please&nbsp;keep&nbsp;the&nbsp;subject&nbsp;line&nbsp;intact&nbsp;and&nbsp;reply&nbsp;to&nbsp;all
email&nbsp;addresses&nbsp;included&nbsp;in&nbsp;the&nbsp;To&nbsp;and&nbsp;CC&nbsp;lines.&nbsp;(Feel&nbsp;free&nbsp;to&nbsp;cut&nbsp;this
introductory&nbsp;paragraph,&nbsp;however.)


Please&nbsp;refer&nbsp;to&nbsp;https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/&nbsp;
for&nbsp;more&nbsp;information&nbsp;about&nbsp;how&nbsp;to&nbsp;handle&nbsp;DISCUSS&nbsp;and&nbsp;COMMENT&nbsp;positions.


The&nbsp;document,&nbsp;along&nbsp;with&nbsp;other&nbsp;ballot&nbsp;positions,&nbsp;can&nbsp;be&nbsp;found&nbsp;here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-vpn-prefix-orf/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks&nbsp;for&nbsp;the&nbsp;updates&nbsp;-&nbsp;clearing&nbsp;my&nbsp;discuss.

Thanks&nbsp;to&nbsp;Scott&nbsp;K.&nbsp;for&nbsp;the&nbsp;SECDIR&nbsp;review&nbsp;and&nbsp;Keyur&nbsp;P.&nbsp;for&nbsp;the&nbsp;shepherds&nbsp;write
up,&nbsp;both&nbsp;were&nbsp;very&nbsp;helpful.

Here&nbsp;are&nbsp;some&nbsp;additional&nbsp;comments&nbsp;where&nbsp;I&nbsp;think&nbsp;the&nbsp;text&nbsp;can&nbsp;be&nbsp;improved.

*&nbsp;Is&nbsp;the&nbsp;first&nbsp;sentence&nbsp;here&nbsp;supposed&nbsp;to&nbsp;have&nbsp;an&nbsp;`If`&nbsp;in&nbsp;the&nbsp;front&nbsp;of&nbsp;it?
&gt;&nbsp;502&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The&nbsp;receiving&nbsp;and&nbsp;sending&nbsp;BGP&nbsp;peers&nbsp;are&nbsp;iBGP&nbsp;peers&nbsp;within&nbsp;the&nbsp;same
&gt;&nbsp;503&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Autonomous&nbsp;System&nbsp;(AS).&nbsp;&nbsp;The&nbsp;VPN&nbsp;instance&nbsp;identification&nbsp;information
&gt;&nbsp;504&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;consists&nbsp;of&nbsp;the&nbsp;RD,&nbsp;and&nbsp;the&nbsp;instruction&nbsp;information&nbsp;is&nbsp;sent&nbsp;using&nbsp;ORF
&gt;&nbsp;505&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;within&nbsp;the&nbsp;ROUTE-REFRESH&nbsp;message.
[WW]: No. The VPN Prefix ORF mechanism described in this document applies only to intra-domain scenarios.

*&nbsp;This&nbsp;pseudo&nbsp;code&nbsp;procedure&nbsp;doesn’t&nbsp;make&nbsp;sense,&nbsp;you&nbsp;should&nbsp;never&nbsp;reach&nbsp;S10a
should&nbsp;you?&nbsp;&gt;&nbsp;552&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;S07.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;For&nbsp;each&nbsp;other&nbsp;VRF&nbsp;u&nbsp;on&nbsp;this&nbsp;device&nbsp;{&nbsp;&gt;
553&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;S08.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If&nbsp;(r&nbsp;is&nbsp;in&nbsp;the&nbsp;import&nbsp;RT&nbsp;list&nbsp;of&nbsp;VRF&nbsp;u)&nbsp;{&nbsp;&gt;&nbsp;554&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;S09.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;conflict_exists&nbsp;=&nbsp;TRUE;&nbsp;&gt;&nbsp;555&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;S09a&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;break;&nbsp;&gt;&nbsp;556&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;S10.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;}&nbsp;&gt;&nbsp;557&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;S10a&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;If&nbsp;(conflict_exists&nbsp;==&nbsp;TRUE)&nbsp;{&nbsp;&gt;&nbsp;558&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;S10b&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;break;&nbsp;&gt;
559&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;S10c&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;}&nbsp;&gt;&nbsp;560&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;S11.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;}&nbsp;Is&nbsp;`S15`&nbsp;also
effectively&nbsp;include&nbsp;a&nbsp;`break`?&nbsp;&nbsp;I’m&nbsp;not&nbsp;sure&nbsp;what&nbsp;pseudo-code&nbsp;language&nbsp;is&nbsp;used
or&nbsp;its&nbsp;rules;&nbsp;if&nbsp;its&nbsp;C-like&nbsp;that&nbsp;code&nbsp;would&nbsp;still&nbsp;fall&nbsp;through&nbsp;to&nbsp;`S20`,&nbsp;which
I&nbsp;believe&nbsp;to&nbsp;be&nbsp;incorrect.
[WW]: Thank you for pointing out this issue. We may revise this part as follows in the next version:
"S08. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; If (r is in the import RT list of VRF u) {
S09. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; conflict_exists = TRUE;
S09a&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; break both the inner and outer loops;
S10. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; }

*&nbsp;Is there&nbsp;any&nbsp;text&nbsp;that&nbsp;could&nbsp;be&nbsp;added&nbsp;as&nbsp;to&nbsp;how/why&nbsp;this&nbsp;is&nbsp;experimental?&nbsp;&nbsp;
[WW]: Actually, the reason why this document is experimental has been given in the Shepherd writeup(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-vpn-prefix-orf/shepherdwriteup/):
"the operators were split in their opinion on whether the functions was valuable or dangerous. The experimental status allows the certain regional networks to proceed to obtain tests results regarding this technology."


Is there&nbsp;anyway&nbsp;(empirical&nbsp;metric)&nbsp;that&nbsp;one&nbsp;might&nbsp;want&nbsp;to&nbsp;compare&nbsp;this&nbsp;approach&nbsp;to managing&nbsp;VRF&nbsp;resources&nbsp;versus&nbsp;the&nbsp;mechanisms&nbsp;listed&nbsp;in&nbsp;§3?
[WW]: Section 7.5 provides the Experimental Assessment Criteria, including metrics like CPU utilization, memory utilization and routing stability.



_______________________________________________
Idr&nbsp;mailing&nbsp;list&nbsp;--&nbsp;[e-mail]
To&nbsp;unsubscribe&nbsp;send&nbsp;an&nbsp;email&nbsp;to&nbsp;[e-mail]