[Sandbox-mailoutput] [Django development] ID list for Link State Vector Routing notification: Changes to draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf

[IETF Secretariat <[e-mail]>]

The attached message would have been sent, but the tracker is in development mode.
It was not sent to anybody.

--- Begin Message ---

Hello,

This is a notification from the ID list for Link State Vector Routing.

Document: draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf,
https://sandbox.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf/

Change by Gunter Van de Velde on 2023-02-06 09:15 PST:

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document 
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. 

This version is dated 15 February 2022.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? 

Proposed Standard

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: 

1. Technical Summary:
Many Massively Scaled Data Centers (MSDCs) have converged on simplified layer 3 routing.  Furthermore, requirements for operational simplicity have led many of these MSDCs to converge on BGP as their single routing protocol for intra-fabric routing, inter-fabric routing and Data Center Interconnect (DCI) routing.  This draft describes a solution which leverages BGP Link-State distribution and the Shortest Path First (SPF) algorithm like Internal Gateway Protocols (IGPs) such as OSPF.
How is this done?

This document augments BGP-LS [RFC7752] by replacing its use of the existing Decision Process.  Rather than reusing the BGP-LS SAFI, the BGP-LS-SPF SAFI is introduced to insure backward compatibility.  The BGP Phase 1 and 2 decision functions of the Decision Process are replaced with the Shortest Path First (SPF) algorithm also known as the Dijkstra algorithm.  The BGP Phase 3 decision function is also simplified since it is no longer dependent on the previous phases.  This solution avails the benefits of both BGP and SPF-based IGPs.  These include TCP based flow-control, no periodic link-state refresh, and completely incremental NLRI advertisement.  These advantages can reduce the overhead in MSDCs where there is a high degree of Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMPs) and the topology is very stable.  Additionally, using an SPF-based computation can support fast convergence and the computation of Loop-Free Alternatives (LFAs) [RFC5286] in the event of link failures.  Furthermore, a BGP based
  solution lends itself to multiple peering models including those incorporating route-reflectors [RFC4456] or controllers.

2. Review and Consensus
The LSVR WG enjoyed a turbulent startup period. The IDR WG and LSR WG handle routing for interdomain and intradomain, while LSVR is using foundational technology of both BGP and SPF based routing protocols. The IETF face-2-face meetings avoided timing overlap to allow IDR and LSR WG participants to voice the depths of their experience and technology authority. This contributed to develop and provide feedback upon the draft draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf.

The draft went through few iterations of volunteer review cycles that have been tracked within the WG email list. In addition, the draft went through early directorate reviews. The original (2019) OPSDIR review executed upon an early version went well (state: READY), while RTGDIR (state: HAS ISSUES) review caused additional technology discussion resulting in the draft to be updated upon the feedback provided (See: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsvr/9z_KGdwqHlmhnzD5HWrarmlSroU/ ).  The document was re-reviewed in June 2021 with some additional concerns for consideration before publication.  These issues identified in the RTGDIR were addressed in the most recent version of publication.
The document went through a third WGLC in 2021 (May – June) and completed on June 17, 2021.

In addition, the LSVR chairs asked expert reviewers to provide feedback on the document, and those have been included and discussed on the WG mailing list.
The document went through three cycles of WGLC to finally result into current documentation status:

WGLC#1 on draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-03
	Date: 3 December 2018 to 17 December 2018
	Reference: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsvr/-7zKGZ-PIXCNnpmxfEjHVSEUqXc/
WGLC#2 on draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-05
	Date: 23 September 2019 – 7 October 2019
	Reference: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsvr/A066U6av_6--WDo7BRFswOtMea4/
WGLC#3 on draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-13
	Date: 20 May 2021 – 17 June 2021
	Reference: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsvr/?gbt=1&index=aQ9Ud_FjwiFpO7OGJnhcXgY0A4U
Current Implementations: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-psarkar-lsvr-bgp-spf-impl-00
•	Arrcus (March 2019): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsvr/OPB6pO_aKU8ty0A3PspSBTQyqXg/
•	FRR Plans (June 2020): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsvr/wCXxSObjSy0Vih5SRS2PPbfacz8/ 

3. Intellectual Property 
During the WGLC IPR calls were performed. No claims for IPR awareness were mentioned by WG members and neither by any of the participating document authors.

4. Other Points
No downward references
Request IANA to assign the BGP-LS/BGP-LS-SPF (AFI 16388 / SAFI TBD1) as described in [RFC4760].
>From safi range [1-63] standards action: https://www.iana.org/assignments/safi-namespace/safi-namespace.xhtml
When this registry is modified, the YANG module [iana-routing-types] must be updated as defined in [RFC8294].
This draft also defines five attribute TLVs for BGP-LS NLRI from the "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" Registry
Expert review suggested by IANA:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml
The draft request IANA to assign types for the
•	SPF capability TLV
•	Sequence Number TLV
•	IPv4 Link Prefix-Length TLV
•	IPv6 Link Prefix-Length TLV
•	SPF Status TLV.

WG Yang draft in progress found here - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-ls-yang/00/

5. Checklist
•	This applicability for bgp-spf (https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-09.txt) draft is progressed in parallel with 'I-D.ietf-lsvr-applicability'


Best regards,

        The Datatracker draft tracking service
        (for the IETF Secretariat)

--- End Message ---