Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09

[Natrajan Venkataraman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Csaba,

All comments are editorial. No changes with respect to InterOp.

Thanks,
-Nats-



Juniper Business Use Only
From: mc36 <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 11:02 AM
To: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <[e-mail]>, Mohamed Boucadair <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09
[External Email. Be cautious of content]


hihi guys 2 emails afterhours here, any change from my side to interop?!

thanks,

cs

On 7/5/23 19:58, Kaliraj Vairavakkalai wrote:
> Hi Med,
>
> We reworked the draft based on your feedback. Please find the new version with all changes incorporated:
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-10.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Fvc-CRRp7SmMIHbms4C6lmZiPPDO4IffGBD-zI1NFJvEwk-iPkrz30UP_q2DeaN7Ac4U2Q$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-10.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Fvc-CRRp7SmMIHbms4C6lmZiPPDO4IffGBD-zI1NFJvEwk-iPkrz30UP_q2DeaN7Ac4U2Q$>  <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-10.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Fvc-CRRp7SmMIHbms4C6lmZiPPDO4IffGBD-zI1NFJvEwk-iPkrz30UP_q2DeaN7Ac4U2Q$ >
>
> We can discuss further on list and offline, on any pending concerns.
>
> Thanks
>
> Kaliraj
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From: *Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 8:51 AM
> *To: *Mohamed Boucadair <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09
>
> Hi Med,
>
> I really appreciate the detailed review.
>
> Yes, the draft accumulated lot of explanation text and appendixes during
>
> the WG review iterations, some of which may be redundant.
>
> We will go thru your comments below and respond, make changes, or ask clarification questions.
>
> Thanks
>
> Kaliraj
>
> *From: *Mohamed Boucadair via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Wednesday, June 28, 2023 at 5:36 AM
> *To: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09
>
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>
>
> Reviewer: Mohamed Boucadair
> Review result: Has Issues
>
> Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09
> Reviewer: Mohamed Boucadair
> Review Date: 28/06/2022
> IETF LC End Date: N/A
> Intended Status: Experimental Track
>
> I have been selected to do a routing directorate    early    review of this draft.
>
> # General & Meta Comments
>
> Many thanks for the effort put into this document.
>
> I like the goal and the overall approach that are documented in this draft. The
> authors included a very comprehensive set of samples to illustrate the overall
> behavior, in various case. That is really valuable, even if I suspect that some
> would argue that this material can be moved to an appendix.
>
> I think that the specification can be better simplified by:
>
> (1) Providing early in the document an reference arch with the various entities.
>
> (2) Adding a NEW section to call out explicitly the intended applicability
> scope (mainly MPLS, which few SRv6 matters)
>
> (3) Questioning whether all new introduced terms are really needed (BN vs. PE,
> TN vs. P as examples)
>
> (4) Better focusing on the key extensions and leaving out (for other I-Ds) many
> parts, claims, and specific applicability. For example, I don't     think that
> the discussion on intent bring much value to the spec. Also, there are many
> redundant parts in the spec (with the same behavior called several times or an
> authoritative RFC is cited by the the behavior text echoed again in the doc).
>
> (5) Adding a new section to group in one single place   Operational/OAM
> considerations
>
> As this is an Experimental spec, I expect the document to include a list of
> intended experiments goals and a set of success criteria.
>
> Parts of the text are pointing to individual I-Ds to illustrate some specific
> deployments. I suggest to remove those from the document. It is up to these
> individual I-Ds to discuss the applicability to CT, not the other way around.
>
> Please refer to the detailed review for specific items. Don't be surprised by
> +150 comments. This is a sign that the I enjoyed reading this spec:-)
>
> # Detailed Review:
>
> FWIW, my detailed review can be found at:
>
> * pdf:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09-rev*20Med.pdf__;JQ!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F67hE18R5JAj6cRNpouA27w5trhNldVGg4tkKWqxXpFra_Bsd4nsxqwYNCQHbyiHncgh0mO35dfJKrc$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09-rev*20Med.pdf__;JQ!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F67hE18R5JAj6cRNpouA27w5trhNldVGg4tkKWqxXpFra_Bsd4nsxqwYNCQHbyiHncgh0mO35dfJKrc$> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09-rev*20Med.pdf__;JQ!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F67hE18R5JAj6cRNpouA27w5trhNldVGg4tkKWqxXpFra_Bsd4nsxqwYNCQHbyiHncgh0mO35dfJKrc$>
> * doc:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/raw/master/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09-rev*20Med.doc__;JQ!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F67hE18R5JAj6cRNpouA27w5trhNldVGg4tkKWqxXpFra_Bsd4nsxqwYNCQHbyiHncgh0mO3WmNGs2s$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/raw/master/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09-rev*20Med.doc__;JQ!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F67hE18R5JAj6cRNpouA27w5trhNldVGg4tkKWqxXpFra_Bsd4nsxqwYNCQHbyiHncgh0mO3WmNGs2s$> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/raw/master/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-09-rev*20Med.doc__;JQ!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F67hE18R5JAj6cRNpouA27w5trhNldVGg4tkKWqxXpFra_Bsd4nsxqwYNCQHbyiHncgh0mO3WmNGs2s$>
>
> Please pick whatever you see useful in the detailed review. Hope this review is
> useful.
>
>