BGP Link State Extensions for SRv6
draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-09
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2022-04-07
|
09 | (System) | Changed action holders to Alvaro Retana (IESG state changed) |
|
2022-04-07
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
|
2021-12-29
|
09 | Bernie Volz | Closed request for Early review by INTDIR with state 'Team Will not Review Version' |
|
2021-11-10
|
09 | Ketan Talaulikar | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-09.txt |
|
2021-11-10
|
09 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar) |
|
2021-11-10
|
09 | Ketan Talaulikar | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-10-13
|
08 | Carlos Bernardos | Assignment of request for Early review by INTDIR to Jouni Korhonen was marked no-response |
|
2021-06-29
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Early review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events': Tool Glitch. Dan performed review |
|
2021-06-24
|
08 | Dan Romascanu | Request for Early review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. Review has been revised by Dan Romascanu. |
|
2021-06-24
|
08 | Dan Romascanu | Request for Early review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. Sent review to list. |
|
2021-06-08
|
08 | Ketan Talaulikar | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-08.txt |
|
2021-06-08
|
08 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar) |
|
2021-06-08
|
08 | Ketan Talaulikar | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-06-03
|
07 | Bernie Volz | Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
|
2021-06-03
|
07 | Bernie Volz | Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
|
2021-05-29
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Adrian Farrel. Sent review to list. |
|
2021-05-27
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Stephen Farrell |
|
2021-05-27
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Early review by SECDIR is assigned to Stephen Farrell |
|
2021-05-26
|
07 | Susan Hares | Template date: 1 November 2019. Date of Shepherd's report: 5/26/2021 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, … Template date: 1 November 2019. Date of Shepherd's report: 5/26/2021 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Standards Why is this the proper type of RFC? BGP-LS additions to BGP. Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? yes (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Technical Summary: Segment Routing (SR) over IPv6 (SRv6) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within various topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological or functional sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the various protocols such as BGP, IS-IS and OSPFv3. BGP Link-state (BGP-LS) address-family solution for SRv6 is similar to BGP-LS for SR for MPLS data-plane. This draft defines extensions to the BGP-LS to advertise SRv6 Segments along with their behaviors and other attributes via BGP. Working Group Summary: WG LC occurred on 11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020). WG support has strong for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-07.txt. This draft is a part of the BGP-LS work for SRv6. Four implementations of this draft exist (Cisco IOS-Xr, Huawei VRP, GoBGP, GoBMP) Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? There are 4 implementations of the protocol. The specific details of the implementations can be found at: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext%20implementations MIB doctor review: None required Early Reviews requested: (5/25/2021) BGP-LS for SRv6 is key technology so extra reviews were requested. Shepherd received targeted Haibo Wang (implementer, deployer, standards person) review so the shepherd is confident in reviews performed. 1) RTG- DIR - awaiting assignment (Tentatively Eric Gray) 2) OPS-DIR - awaiting assignment 3) INT-DIR - awaiting assignment. 4) SEC-DIR - awaiting assignment. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Susan Hares Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana IDR chairs: Keyur Patel, Jeff Haas, Susan Hares (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. 1) Extensive review and discussion with authors on Text https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vn4v2sxI_5uLKGqY12JCCJN4MvU/ Version 7 addressed all the known issues. 2) NITS review - no nits 3) IPR review 4) Requested specific BGP-LS expert to review Wanghaibo (Rainsword) <rainsword.wang@huawei.com> See input to shepherd's review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vn4v2sxI_5uLKGqY12JCCJN4MvU/ Summary of Comments from Haibo Wang: Addressed by 1. chapter 4.2 SRv6 LAN End.X SID TLV need clarifiications - Clarifications made to -07 2. SRv6 SID NLRI - BGP EPE Peer node is advertised with SRv6 SID NLRI, can cause disadvantages to SR-MPLS. [comment - Clarifications made to -07.txt 3. Figure 12: SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV Format Figure 13: SRv6 BGP Peer End.X SID TLV Flags Format - clarifications made to -07. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? No broader review required. Early reviews requested for OPS-DIR, RTG-DIR, INT-DIR, and SEC-DIR. Reason: Key technology such as BGP-LS for SRV6 should be reviewed by as many eyes as possible. I am confident in IDR reviews for BGP technology, but wider issues should be examined by Directorates. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? No issues with current text. SRv6 is important technology to variety of Carriers and Data Center support. INT-DIR request is to validate the SRv6 given the tunnel technology. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? IPR statements from Authors: (All Authors have given IPR, Not all contributors) Guarav Dawra: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/U5R1MG8prEo38veJiDESvDvXcwE/ Clarence Filsfils https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yiMXjdo6L-S6NUm_IvDRJj0uVfI/ Ketan Talaulikar https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/6nOFdInk1SNjJKdVNVsgUKOXdgQ/ Mach Chen https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/QwxlRGM0_hywg3GmzJY7kl0x7Ng/ Daniel Bernier https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/gA8PHisHofUyxGTjjTiMSsTfWOI/ Bruno Decraene https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bQoHczBPTYvJwD81BNnctYDWw-s/ Contributors: James Uttaro jul738@att.com - missing Hani Elmalky [Ericsson] hani.elmalky@gmail.com (missing) Arjun Sreekantiah (missing) arjunhrs@gmail.com Les Ginsberg (Cisco) (missing) ginsberg@cisco.com Shuwan Zhuang: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/c6v2XGu5L3dC5BT_Z2grLCMgPY8/ (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. IPR disclosures: Cisco: filed 10/1/2019 https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3797/ Huawei: filed 11/13/2020 https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4486/ Note: Cisco IPR filed after adoption, but no concerns with Note: Huawei IPR filed prior close of WG LC. No objections in WG LC for Huawei and Cisco WG LC. Recall during status reports (5/26 - 6/7) (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? WG LC: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/pF1iR3OlaCBhCBxegoyP4P-dMRg/ Solid consensus with active comments (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Ran detailed IP-NITs - nothing found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. no additional reviews (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? yes (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? WG draft: (unclear timeline for advancement) I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-02.txt Submitted to IESG for publication: draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10 draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-15 Normative references in RFC editor's queue: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. Yes WG draft: I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-02.txt Submitted to IESG for publication: draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10 draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-15 (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? No changes to RFCs. New work on BGP-LS for SRV6. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. All Allocation of the BGP-LS NLRI (section 9.1) and BGP-LS TLVs were assigned for early allocation. These allocation are correct. No new registries. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No new regist ries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. No XML, BNF, MIB, or Yang modules. No review needed. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? No Yang module |
|
2021-05-26
|
07 | Susan Hares | Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
|
2021-05-26
|
07 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2021-05-26
|
07 | Susan Hares | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
|
2021-05-26
|
07 | Susan Hares | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2021-05-26
|
07 | Susan Hares | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2021-05-26
|
07 | Susan Hares | Template date: 1 November 2019. Date of Shepherd's report: 5/26/2021 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, … Template date: 1 November 2019. Date of Shepherd's report: 5/26/2021 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Standards Why is this the proper type of RFC? BGP-LS additions to BGP. Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? yes (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Technical Summary: Segment Routing (SR) over IPv6 (SRv6) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within various topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological or functional sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the various protocols such as BGP, IS-IS and OSPFv3. BGP Link-state (BGP-LS) address-family solution for SRv6 is similar to BGP-LS for SR for MPLS data-plane. This draft defines extensions to the BGP-LS to advertise SRv6 Segments along with their behaviors and other attributes via BGP. Working Group Summary: WG LC occurred on 11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020). WG support has strong for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-07.txt. This draft is a part of the BGP-LS work for SRv6. Four implementations of this draft exist (Cisco IOS-Xr, Huawei VRP, GoBGP, GoBMP) Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? There are 4 implementations of the protocol. The specific details of the implementations can be found at: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext%20implementations MIB doctor review: None required Early Reviews requested: (5/25/2021) BGP-LS for SRv6 is key technology so extra reviews were requested. Shepherd received targeted Haibo Wang (implementer, deployer, standards person) review so the shepherd is confident in reviews performed. 1) RTG- DIR - awaiting assignment (Tentatively Eric Gray) 2) OPS-DIR - awaiting assignment 3) INT-DIR - awaiting assignment. 4) SEC-DIR - awaiting assignment. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Susan Hares Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana IDR chairs: Keyur Patel, Jeff Haas, Susan Hares (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. 1) Extensive review and discussion with authors on Text https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vn4v2sxI_5uLKGqY12JCCJN4MvU/ Version 7 addressed all the known issues. 2) NITS review - no nits 3) IPR review 4) Requested specific BGP-LS expert to review Wanghaibo (Rainsword) <rainsword.wang@huawei.com> See input to shepherd's review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vn4v2sxI_5uLKGqY12JCCJN4MvU/ Summary of Comments from Haibo Wang: Addressed by 1. chapter 4.2 SRv6 LAN End.X SID TLV need clarifiications - Clarifications made to -07 2. SRv6 SID NLRI - BGP EPE Peer node is advertised with SRv6 SID NLRI, can cause disadvantages to SR-MPLS. [comment - Clarifications made to -07.txt 3. Figure 12: SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV Format Figure 13: SRv6 BGP Peer End.X SID TLV Flags Format - clarifications made to -07. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? No broader review required. Early reviews requested for OPS-DIR, RTG-DIR, INT-DIR, and SEC-DIR. Reason: Key technology such as BGP-LS for SRV6 should be reviewed by as many eyes as possible. I am confident in IDR reviews for BGP technology, but wider issues should be examined by Directorates. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? No issues with current text. SRv6 is important technology to variety of Carriers and Data Center support. INT-DIR request is to validate the SRv6 given the tunnel technology. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? IPR statements from Authors: (All Authors have given IPR, Not all contributors) Guarav Dawra: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/U5R1MG8prEo38veJiDESvDvXcwE/ Clarence Filsfils https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yiMXjdo6L-S6NUm_IvDRJj0uVfI/ Ketan Talaulikar https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/6nOFdInk1SNjJKdVNVsgUKOXdgQ/ Mach Chen https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/QwxlRGM0_hywg3GmzJY7kl0x7Ng/ Daniel Bernier https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/gA8PHisHofUyxGTjjTiMSsTfWOI/ Bruno Decraene https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bQoHczBPTYvJwD81BNnctYDWw-s/ Contributors: James Uttaro jul738@att.com - missing Hani Elmalky [Ericsson] hani.elmalky@gmail.com (missing) Arjun Sreekantiah (missing) arjunhrs@gmail.com Les Ginsberg (Cisco) (missing) ginsberg@cisco.com Shuwan Zhuang: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/c6v2XGu5L3dC5BT_Z2grLCMgPY8/ (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. IPR disclosures: Cisco: filed 10/1/2019 https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3797/ Huawei: filed 11/13/2020 https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4486/ Note: Cisco IPR filed after adoption, but no concerns with Note: Huawei IPR filed prior close of WG LC. No objections in WG LC for Huawei and Cisco WG LC. Recall during status reports (5/26 - 6/7) (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? WG LC: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/pF1iR3OlaCBhCBxegoyP4P-dMRg/ Solid consensus with active comments (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Ran detailed IP-NITs - nothing found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. no additional reviews (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? yes (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? WG draft: (unclear timeline for advancement) I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-02.txt Submitted to IESG for publication: draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10 draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-15 Normative references in RFC editor's queue: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. Yes WG draft: I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-02.txt Submitted to IESG for publication: draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10 draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-15 (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? No changes to RFCs. New work on BGP-LS for SRV6. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. All Allocation of the BGP-LS NLRI (section 9.1) and BGP-LS TLVs were assigned for early allocation. These allocation are correct. No new registries. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No new regist ries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. No XML, BNF, MIB, or Yang modules. No review needed. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? No Yang module |
|
2021-05-26
|
07 | Susan Hares | Template date: 1 November 2019. Date of Shepherd's report: 5/26/2021 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, … Template date: 1 November 2019. Date of Shepherd's report: 5/26/2021 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Standards Why is this the proper type of RFC? BGP-LS additions to BGP. Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? yes (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Technical Summary: Segment Routing (SR) over IPv6 (SRv6) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within various topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological or functional sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the various protocols such as BGP, IS-IS and OSPFv3. BGP Link-state (BGP-LS) address-family solution for SRv6 is similar to BGP-LS for SR for MPLS data-plane. This draft defines extensions to the BGP-LS to advertise SRv6 Segments along with their behaviors and other attributes via BGP. Working Group Summary: WG LC occurred on 11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020). WG support has strong for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-07.txt. This draft is a part of the BGP-LS work for SRv6. Four implementations of this draft exist (Cisco IOS-Xr, Huawei VRP, GoBGP, GoBMP) Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? There are 4 implementations of the protocol. The specific details of the implementations can be found at: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext%20implementations MIB doctor review: None required Early Reviews requested: (5/25/2021) BGP-LS for SRv6 is key technology so extra reviews were requested. Shepherd received targeted Haibo Wang (implementer, deployer, standards person) review so the shepherd is confident in reviews performed. 1) RTG- DIR - awaiting assignment (Tentatively Eric Gray) 2) OPS-DIR - awaiting assignment 3) INT-DIR - awaiting assignment. 4) SEC-DIR - awaiting assignment. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Susan Hares Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana IDR chairs: Keyur Patel, Jeff Haas, Susan Hares (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. 1) Extensive review and discussion with authors on Text https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vn4v2sxI_5uLKGqY12JCCJN4MvU/ Version 7 addressed all the known issues. 2) NITS review - no nits 3) IPR review 4) Requested specific BGP-LS expert to review Wanghaibo (Rainsword) <rainsword.wang@huawei.com> See input to shepherd's review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vn4v2sxI_5uLKGqY12JCCJN4MvU/ Summary of Comments from Haibo Wang: Addressed by 1. chapter 4.2 SRv6 LAN End.X SID TLV need clarifiications - Clarifications made to -07 2. SRv6 SID NLRI - BGP EPE Peer node is advertised with SRv6 SID NLRI, can cause disadvantages to SR-MPLS. [comment - Clarifications made to -07.txt 3. Figure 12: SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV Format Figure 13: SRv6 BGP Peer End.X SID TLV Flags Format - clarifications made to -07. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? No broader review required. Early reviews requested for OPS-DIR, RTG-DIR, INT-DIR, and SEC-DIR. Reason: Key technology such as BGP-LS for SRV6 should be reviewed by as many eyes as possible. I am confident in IDR reviews for BGP technology, but wider issues should be examined by Directorates. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? No issues with current text. SRv6 is important technology to variety of Carriers and Data Center support. INT-DIR request is to validate the SRv6 given the tunnel technology. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? IPR statements from Authors: (All Authors have given IPR, Not all contributors) Guarav Dawra: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/U5R1MG8prEo38veJiDESvDvXcwE/ Clarence Filsfils https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yiMXjdo6L-S6NUm_IvDRJj0uVfI/ Ketan Talaulikar https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/6nOFdInk1SNjJKdVNVsgUKOXdgQ/ Mach Chen https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/QwxlRGM0_hywg3GmzJY7kl0x7Ng/ Daniel Bernier https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/gA8PHisHofUyxGTjjTiMSsTfWOI/ Bruno Decraene https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bQoHczBPTYvJwD81BNnctYDWw-s/ Contributors: James Uttaro jul738@att.com - missing Hani Elmalky [Ericsson] hani.elmalky@gmail.com (missing) Arjun Sreekantiah (missing) arjunhrs@gmail.com Les Ginsberg (Cisco) (missing) ginsberg@cisco.com Shuwan Zhuang: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/c6v2XGu5L3dC5BT_Z2grLCMgPY8/ (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. IPR disclosures: Cisco: filed 10/1/2019 https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3797/ Huawei: filed 11/13/2020 https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4486/ Note: Cisco IPR filed after adoption, but no concerns with Note: Huawei IPR filed prior close of WG LC. No objections in WG LC for Huawei and Cisco WG LC. Recall during status reports (5/26 - 6/7) (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? WG LC: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/pF1iR3OlaCBhCBxegoyP4P-dMRg/ Solid consensus with active comments (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Ran detailed IP-NITs - nothing found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. no additional reviews (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? yes (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? WG draft: (unclear timeline for advancement) I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-02.txt Submitted to IESG for publication: draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10 draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-15 Normative references in RFC editor's queue: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. Yes WG draft: I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-02.txt Submitted to IESG for publication: draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10 draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-15 (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? No changes to RFCs. New work on BGP-LS for SRV6. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. All Allocation of the BGP-LS NLRI (section 9.1) and BGP-LS TLVs were assigned for early allocation. These allocation are correct. No new registries. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No new regist ries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. No XML, BNF, MIB, or Yang modules. No review needed. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? No Yang module |
|
2021-05-26
|
07 | Susan Hares | Template date: 1 November 2019. Date of Shepherd's report: 5/26/2021 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, … Template date: 1 November 2019. Date of Shepherd's report: 5/26/2021 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Standards Why is this the proper type of RFC? BGP-LS additions to BGP. Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? yes (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Technical Summary: Segment Routing (SR) over IPv6 (SRv6) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within various topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological or functional sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the various protocols such as BGP, IS-IS and OSPFv3. BGP Link-state (BGP-LS) address-family solution for SRv6 is similar to BGP-LS for SR for MPLS data-plane. This draft defines extensions to the BGP-LS to advertise SRv6 Segments along with their behaviors and other attributes via BGP. Working Group Summary: WG LC occurred on 11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020). WG support has strong for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-07.txt. This draft is a part of the BGP-LS work for SRv6. Four implementations of this draft exist (Cisco IOS-Xr, Huawei VRP, GoBGP, GoBMP) Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? There are 4 implementations of the protocol. The specific details of the implementations can be found at: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext%20implementations MIB doctor review: None required Early Reviews requested: (5/25/2021) BGP-LS for SRv6 is key technology so extra reviews were requested. Shepherd received targeted Haibo Wang (implementer, deployer, standards person) review so the shepherd is confident in reviews performed. 1) RTG- DIR - awaiting assignment (Tentatively Eric Gray) 2) OPS-DIR - awaiting assignment 3) INT-DIR - awaiting assignment. 4) SEC-DIR - awaiting assignment. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Susan Hares Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana IDR chairs: Keyur Patel, Jeff Haas, Susan Hares (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. 1) Extensive review and discussion with authors on Text https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vn4v2sxI_5uLKGqY12JCCJN4MvU/ Version 7 addressed all the known issues. 2) NITS review - no nits 3) IPR review 4) Requested specific BGP-LS expert to review Wanghaibo (Rainsword) <rainsword.wang@huawei.com> See input to shepherd's review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vn4v2sxI_5uLKGqY12JCCJN4MvU/ Summary of Comments from Haibo Wang: Addressed by 1. chapter 4.2 SRv6 LAN End.X SID TLV need clarifiications - Clarifications made to -07 2. SRv6 SID NLRI - BGP EPE Peer node is advertised with SRv6 SID NLRI, can cause disadvantages to SR-MPLS. [comment - Clarifications made to -07.txt 3. Figure 12: SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV Format Figure 13: SRv6 BGP Peer End.X SID TLV Flags Format - clarifications made to -07. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? No broader review required. Early reviews requested for OPS-DIR, RTG-DIR, INT-DIR, SEC-EIR. Reason: Key technology such as BGP-LS for SRV6 should be reviewed by as many eyes as possible. I am confident in IDR reviews for BGP technology, but wider issues should be examined by Directorates. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? No issues with current text. SRv6 is important technology to variety of Carriers and Data Center support. INT-DIR request is to validate the SRv6 given the tunnel technology. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? IPR statements from Authors: (All Authors have given IPR, Not all contributors) Guarav Dawra: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/U5R1MG8prEo38veJiDESvDvXcwE/ Clarence Filsfils https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yiMXjdo6L-S6NUm_IvDRJj0uVfI/ Ketan Talaulikar https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/6nOFdInk1SNjJKdVNVsgUKOXdgQ/ Mach Chen https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/QwxlRGM0_hywg3GmzJY7kl0x7Ng/ Daniel Bernier https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/gA8PHisHofUyxGTjjTiMSsTfWOI/ Bruno Decraene https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bQoHczBPTYvJwD81BNnctYDWw-s/ Contributors: James Uttaro jul738@att.com - missing Hani Elmalky [Ericsson] hani.elmalky@gmail.com (missing) Arjun Sreekantiah (missing) arjunhrs@gmail.com Les Ginsberg (Cisco) (missing) ginsberg@cisco.com Shuwan Zhuang: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/c6v2XGu5L3dC5BT_Z2grLCMgPY8/ (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. IPR disclosures: Cisco: filed 10/1/2019 https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3797/ Huawei: filed 11/13/2020 https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4486/ Note: Cisco IPR filed after adoption, but no concerns with Note: Huawei IPR filed prior close of WG LC. No objections in WG LC for Huawei and Cisco WG LC. Recall during status reports (5/26 - 6/7) (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? WG LC: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/pF1iR3OlaCBhCBxegoyP4P-dMRg/ Solid consensus with active comments (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Ran detailed IP-NITs - nothing found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. no additional reviews (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? yes (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? WG draft: (unclear timeline for advancement) I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-02.txt Submitted to IESG for publication: draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10 draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-15 Normative references in RFC editor's queue: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. Yes WG draft: I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-02.txt Submitted to IESG for publication: draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10 draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-15 (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? No changes to RFCs. New work on BGP-LS for SRV6. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. All Allocation of the BGP-LS NLRI (section 9.1) and BGP-LS TLVs were assigned for early allocation. These allocation are correct. No new registries. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No new regist ries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. No XML, BNF, MIB, or Yang modules. No review needed. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? No Yang module |
|
2021-05-26
|
07 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by SECDIR |
|
2021-05-26
|
07 | Susan Hares | Template date: 1 November 2019. Date of Shepherd's report: 5/26/2021 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, … Template date: 1 November 2019. Date of Shepherd's report: 5/26/2021 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Standards Why is this the proper type of RFC? BGP-LS additions to BGP. Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? yes (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Technical Summary: Segment Routing (SR) over IPv6 (SRv6) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within various topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological or functional sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the various protocols such as BGP, IS-IS and OSPFv3. BGP Link-state (BGP-LS) address-family solution for SRv6 is similar to BGP-LS for SR for MPLS data-plane. This draft defines extensions to the BGP-LS to advertise SRv6 Segments along with their behaviors and other attributes via BGP. Working Group Summary: WG LC occurred on 11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020). WG support has strong for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-07.txt. This draft is a part of the BGP-LS work for SRv6. Four implementations of this draft exist (Cisco IOS-Xr, Huawei VRP, GoBGP, GoBMP) Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? There are 4 implementations of the protocol. The specific details of the implementations can be found at: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext%20implementations MIB doctor review: None required Early Reviews requested: (5/25/2021) BGP-LS for SRv6 is key technology so extra reviews were requested. Shepherd received targeted Haibo Wang (implementer, deployer, standards person) review so the shepherd is confident in reviews performed. 1) RTG- DIR - awaiting assignment (Tentatively Eric Gray) 2) OPS-DIR - awaiting assignment 3) INT-DIR - awaiting assignment. 4) SEC-DIR - awaiting assignment. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Susan Hares Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana IDR chairs: Keyur Patel, Jeff Haas, Susan Hares (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. 1) Extensive review and discussion with authors on Text https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vn4v2sxI_5uLKGqY12JCCJN4MvU/ Version 7 addressed all the known issues. 2) NITS review - no nits 3) IPR review 4) Requested specific BGP-LS expert to review Wanghaibo (Rainsword) <rainsword.wang@huawei.com> See input to shepherd's review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vn4v2sxI_5uLKGqY12JCCJN4MvU/ Summary of Comments from Haibo Wang: Addressed by 1. chapter 4.2 SRv6 LAN End.X SID TLV need clarifiications - Clarifications made to -07 2. SRv6 SID NLRI - BGP EPE Peer node is advertised with SRv6 SID NLRI, can cause disadvantages to SR-MPLS. [comment - Clarifications made to -07.txt 3. Figure 12: SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV Format Figure 13: SRv6 BGP Peer End.X SID TLV Flags Format - clarifications made to -07. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? No broader review required. Early reviews requested for OPS-DIR, RTG-DIR, INT-DIR. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? No issues with current text. SRv6 is important technology to variety of Carriers and Data Center support. INT-DIR request is to validate the SRv6 given the tunnel technology. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? IPR statements from Authors: Guarav Dawra: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/U5R1MG8prEo38veJiDESvDvXcwE/ Clarence Filsfils https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yiMXjdo6L-S6NUm_IvDRJj0uVfI/ Ketan Talaulikar https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/6nOFdInk1SNjJKdVNVsgUKOXdgQ/ Mach Chen https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/QwxlRGM0_hywg3GmzJY7kl0x7Ng/ Daniel Bernier https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/gA8PHisHofUyxGTjjTiMSsTfWOI/ Bruno Decraene https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bQoHczBPTYvJwD81BNnctYDWw-s/ Contributors: James Uttaro jul738@att.com - missing Hani Elmalky [Ericsson] hani.elmalky@gmail.com (missing) Arjun Sreekantiah (missing) arjunhrs@gmail.com Les Ginsberg (Cisco) (missing) ginsberg@cisco.com Shuwan Zhuang: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/c6v2XGu5L3dC5BT_Z2grLCMgPY8/ (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. IPR disclosures: Cisco: filed 10/1/2019 https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3797/ Huawei: filed 11/13/2020 https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4486/ Note: Cisco IPR filed after adoption, but no concerns with Note: Huawei IPR filed prior close of WG LC. No objections in WG LC for Huawei and Cisco WG LC. Recall during status reports (5/26 - 6/7) (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? WG LC: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/pF1iR3OlaCBhCBxegoyP4P-dMRg/ Solid consensus with active comments (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Ran detailed IP-NITs - nothing found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. no additional reviews (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? yes (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? WG draft: (unclear timeline for advancement) I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-02.txt Submitted to IESG for publication: draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10 draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-15 Normative references in RFC editor's queue: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. Yes WG draft: I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-02.txt Submitted to IESG for publication: draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10 draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-15 (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? No changes to RFCs. New work on BGP-LS for SRV6. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. All Allocation of the BGP-LS NLRI (section 9.1) and BGP-LS TLVs were assigned for early allocation. These allocation are correct. No new registries. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No new regist ries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. No XML, BNF, MIB, or Yang modules. No review needed. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? No Yang module |
|
2021-05-26
|
07 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Adrian Farrel |
|
2021-05-26
|
07 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Adrian Farrel |
|
2021-05-26
|
07 | Luc André Burdet | Assignment of request for Early review by RTGDIR to Eric Gray was withdrawn |
|
2021-05-26
|
07 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Eric Gray |
|
2021-05-26
|
07 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Eric Gray |
|
2021-05-26
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
|
2021-05-26
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Early review by OPSDIR is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
|
2021-05-25
|
07 | Susan Hares | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2021-05-25
|
07 | Susan Hares | Template date: 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Standards Why is … Template date: 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Standards Why is this the proper type of RFC? BGP-LS additions to BGP. Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? yes (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Technical Summary: Segment Routing (SR) over IPv6 (SRv6) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within various topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological or functional sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the various protocols such as BGP, IS-IS and OSPFv3. BGP Link-state (BGP-LS) address-family solution for SRv6 is similar to BGP-LS for SR for MPLS data-plane. This draft defines extensions to the BGP-LS to advertise SRv6 Segments along with their behaviors and other attributes via BGP. Working Group Summary: WG LC occurred on 11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020). WG support has strong for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-07.txt. This draft is a part of the BGP-LS work for SRv6. Four implementations of this draft exist (Cisco IOS-Xr, Huawei VRP, GoBGP, GoBMP) Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? There are 4 implementations of the protocol. The specific details of the implementations can be found at: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext%20implementations MIB doctor review: None required Early Reviews requested: (5/25/2021) 1) RTG- DIR 2) OPS-DIR 3) INT-DIR Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Susan Hares Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana IDR chairs: Keyur Patel, Jeff Haas, Susan Hares (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. 1) Extensive review and discussion with authors on Text https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vn4v2sxI_5uLKGqY12JCCJN4MvU/ Version 7 addressed all the known issues. 2) NITS review - no nits 3) IPR review 4) Requested specific BGP-LS expert to review Wanghaibo (Rainsword) <rainsword.wang@huawei.com> See input to shepherd's review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vn4v2sxI_5uLKGqY12JCCJN4MvU/ Summary of Comments from Haibo Wang: Addressed by 1. chapter 4.2 SRv6 LAN End.X SID TLV need clarifiications - Clarifications made to -07 2. SRv6 SID NLRI - BGP EPE Peer node is advertised with SRv6 SID NLRI, can cause disadvantages to SR-MPLS. [comment - Clarifications made to -07.txt 3. Figure 12: SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV Format Figure 13: SRv6 BGP Peer End.X SID TLV Flags Format - clarifications made to -07. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? No broader review required. Early reviews requested for OPS-DIR, RTG-DIR, INT-DIR due to subject matter. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? No issues with current text. SRv6 is important technology to variety of Carriers and Data Center support. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. IPR disclosures: Cisco: filed 10/1/2019 https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3797/ Huawei: filed 11/13/2020 https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4486/ Note: Cisco IPR filed after adoption, but no concerns with Note: Huawei IPR filed prior close of WG LC. IPR statements: Guarav Dawra: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/U5R1MG8prEo38veJiDESvDvXcwE/ Clarence Filsfils https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yiMXjdo6L-S6NUm_IvDRJj0uVfI/ Ketan Talaulikar https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/6nOFdInk1SNjJKdVNVsgUKOXdgQ/ Mach Chen https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/QwxlRGM0_hywg3GmzJY7kl0x7Ng/ Daniel Bernier https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/gA8PHisHofUyxGTjjTiMSsTfWOI/ Bruno Decraene https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bQoHczBPTYvJwD81BNnctYDWw-s/ Contributors: James Uttaro jul738@att.com Hani Elmalky [Ericsson] hani.elmalky@gmail.com (missing) Arjun Sreekantiah (missing) arjunhrs@gmail.com Les Ginsberg (Cisco) (missing) ginsberg@cisco.com Shuwan Zhuang: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/c6v2XGu5L3dC5BT_Z2grLCMgPY8/ (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? WG LC: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/pF1iR3OlaCBhCBxegoyP4P-dMRg/ Solid consensus with active comments (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Ran detailed IP-NITs - nothing found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. no additional reviews (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? yes (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? WG draft: I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-02.txt Submitted to IESG for publication: draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10 draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-15 Normative references in RFC editor's queue: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? |
|
2021-05-25
|
07 | Susan Hares | Template date: 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Standards Why is … Template date: 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Standards Why is this the proper type of RFC? BGP-LS additions to BGP. Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? yes (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Technical Summary: Segment Routing (SR) over IPv6 (SRv6) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within various topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological or functional sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the various protocols such as BGP, IS-IS and OSPFv3. BGP Link-state (BGP-LS) address-family solution for SRv6 is similar to BGP-LS for SR for MPLS data-plane. This draft defines extensions to the BGP-LS to advertise SRv6 Segments along with their behaviors and other attributes via BGP. Working Group Summary: WG LC occurred on 11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020). WG support has strong for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-07.txt. This draft is a part of the BGP-LS work for SRv6. Four implementations of this draft exist (Cisco IOS-Xr, Huawei VRP, GoBGP, GoBMP) Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? There are 4 implementations of the protocol. The specific details of the implementations can be found at: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext%20implementations MIB doctor review: None required Early Reviews requested: (5/25/2021) 1) RTG- DIR 2) OPS-DIR 3) INT-DIR Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Susan Hares Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana IDR chairs: Keyur Patel, Jeff Haas, Susan Hares (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. 1) Extensive review and discussion with authors on Text https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vn4v2sxI_5uLKGqY12JCCJN4MvU/ Version 7 addressed all the known issues. 2) NITS review 3) IPR review 4) Requested specific BGP-LS expert to review Wanghaibo (Rainsword) <rainsword.wang@huawei.com> Summary of Comments from Haibo Wang: Addressed by 1. chapter 4.2 SRv6 LAN End.X SID TLV need clarifiications - 2. SRv6 SID NLRI - BGP EPE Peer node is advertised with SRv6 SID NLRI, can cause disadvantages to SR-MPLS. [comment Now the BGP EPE Peer Node info is advertised with SRv6 SID NLRI, it cause some disadvantages compared to SR-MPLE EPE. First, the number of NLRIs needed for SRv6 EPE may be more than MPLS EPE. This is because the NLRI's key is SRv6 SID, but for one EPE Peer node, there may be multiple SIDs, such as End.x with PSP, End.x with USD etc. Second, with MPLS EPE, for a direct EBGP Peer, only one NLRI is needed to advertise the link and its Peer node SID, link attributes. But with the current method for SRv6 EPE, at least two NLRIs are needed, one is the SRv6 SID NLRI for the Peer Node SID, the other is a Link NLRI with the End.X SID (the SID value may be the same while need to be advertised in different NLRIs) and link attributes.. At current stage maybe it is not suitable to change the encoding, but I suggest to give more detail description about the behavior of advertising the SRv6 Peer node SID and the Peer adjacency SID with corresponding NLRIs for a direct peer and for a peer established on loopback. 3. Figure 12: SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV Format Figure 13: SRv6 BGP Peer End.X SID TLV Flags Format [comment]As Figure 13 is about the Flags of SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV, its name may be changed to SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV Flags Format If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. IPR disclosures: Cisco: filed 10/1/2019 https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3797/ Huawei: filed 11/13/2020 https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4486/ Note: Cisco IPR filed after adoption, but no concerns with Note: Huawei IPR filed prior close of WG LC. IPR statements: Guarav Dawra: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/U5R1MG8prEo38veJiDESvDvXcwE/ Clarence Filsfils https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yiMXjdo6L-S6NUm_IvDRJj0uVfI/ Ketan Talaulikar https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/6nOFdInk1SNjJKdVNVsgUKOXdgQ/ Mach Chen https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/QwxlRGM0_hywg3GmzJY7kl0x7Ng/ Daniel Bernier https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/gA8PHisHofUyxGTjjTiMSsTfWOI/ Bruno Decraene https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/bQoHczBPTYvJwD81BNnctYDWw-s/ Contributors: James Uttaro jul738@att.com Hani Elmalky [Ericsson] hani.elmalky@gmail.com (missing) Arjun Sreekantiah (missing) arjunhrs@gmail.com Les Ginsberg (Cisco) (missing) ginsberg@cisco.com Shuwan Zhuang: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/c6v2XGu5L3dC5BT_Z2grLCMgPY8/ (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? WG LC: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/pF1iR3OlaCBhCBxegoyP4P-dMRg/ Solid consensus with active comments (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? |
|
2021-05-25
|
07 | Susan Hares | Template date: 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Standards Why is … Template date: 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Standards Why is this the proper type of RFC? BGP-LS additions to BGP. Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? yes (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Technical Summary: Segment Routing (SR) over IPv6 (SRv6) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within various topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological or functional sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the various protocols such as BGP, IS-IS and OSPFv3. BGP Link-state (BGP-LS) address-family solution for SRv6 is similar to BGP-LS for SR for MPLS data-plane. This draft defines extensions to the BGP-LS to advertise SRv6 Segments along with their behaviors and other attributes via BGP. Working Group Summary: WG LC occurred on 11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020). WG support has strong for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-07.txt. This draft is a part of the BGP-LS work for SRv6. Four implementations of this draft exist (Cisco IOS-Xr, Huawei VRP, GoBGP, GoBMP) Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? There are 4 implementations of the protocol. The specific details of the implementations can be found at: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext%20implementations MIB doctor review: None required Early Reviews requested: (5/25/2021) 1) RTG- DIR 2) OPS-DIR 3) INT-DIR Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Susan Hares Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana IDR chairs: Keyur Patel, Jeff Haas, Susan Hares (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. 1) Extensive review and discussion with authors on Text https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vn4v2sxI_5uLKGqY12JCCJN4MvU/ Version 7 addressed all the known issues. 2) NITS review 3) IPR review 4) Requested specific BGP-LS expert to review Wanghaibo (Rainsword) <rainsword.wang@huawei.com> Summary of Comments from Haibo Wang: Addressed by 1. chapter 4.2 SRv6 LAN End.X SID TLV need clarifiications - 2. SRv6 SID NLRI - BGP EPE Peer node is advertised with SRv6 SID NLRI, can cause disadvantages to SR-MPLS. [comment Now the BGP EPE Peer Node info is advertised with SRv6 SID NLRI, it cause some disadvantages compared to SR-MPLE EPE. First, the number of NLRIs needed for SRv6 EPE may be more than MPLS EPE. This is because the NLRI's key is SRv6 SID, but for one EPE Peer node, there may be multiple SIDs, such as End.x with PSP, End.x with USD etc. Second, with MPLS EPE, for a direct EBGP Peer, only one NLRI is needed to advertise the link and its Peer node SID, link attributes. But with the current method for SRv6 EPE, at least two NLRIs are needed, one is the SRv6 SID NLRI for the Peer Node SID, the other is a Link NLRI with the End.X SID (the SID value may be the same while need to be advertised in different NLRIs) and link attributes.. At current stage maybe it is not suitable to change the encoding, but I suggest to give more detail description about the behavior of advertising the SRv6 Peer node SID and the Peer adjacency SID with corresponding NLRIs for a direct peer and for a peer established on loopback. 3. Figure 12: SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV Format Figure 13: SRv6 BGP Peer End.X SID TLV Flags Format [comment]As Figure 13 is about the Flags of SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV, its name may be changed to SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV Flags Format If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. IPR disclosures: Cisco: filed 10/1/2019 https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3797/ Huawei: filed 11/13/2020 https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4486/ Note: Cisco IPR filed after adoption, but no concerns with Note: Huawei IPR filed prior close of WG LC. IPR statements: Ketan Talaulikar https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/6nOFdInk1SNjJKdVNVsgUKOXdgQ/ (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? |
|
2021-05-25
|
07 | Susan Hares | Template date: 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Standards Why is … Template date: 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Standards Why is this the proper type of RFC? BGP-LS additions to BGP. Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? yes (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Technical Summary: Segment Routing (SR) over IPv6 (SRv6) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within various topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological or functional sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the various protocols such as BGP, IS-IS and OSPFv3. BGP Link-state (BGP-LS) address-family solution for SRv6 is similar to BGP-LS for SR for MPLS data-plane. This draft defines extensions to the BGP-LS to advertise SRv6 Segments along with their behaviors and other attributes via BGP. Working Group Summary: WG support has strong for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-07.txt. This draft is a part of the BGP-LS work for SRv6. Four implementations of this draft exist (Cisco IOS-Xr, Huawei VRP, GoBGP, GoBMP) Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? There are 4 implementations of the protocol. The specific details of the implementations can be found at: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext%20implementations MIB doctor review: None required Early Reviews requested: 1) RTG- DIR 2) OPS-DIR 3) INT-DIR Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Susan Hares Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana IDR chairs: Keyur Patel, Jeff Haas, Susan Hares (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. 1) Extensive review and discussion with authors on Text 2) NITS review 3) IPR review Requested specific BGP-LS expert to review Wanghaibo (Rainsword) <rainsword.wang@huawei.com> Summary of Comments from Haibo Wang: Addressed by 1. chapter 4.2 SRv6 LAN End.X SID TLV need clarifiications - 2. SRv6 SID NLRI - BGP EPE Peer node is advertised with SRv6 SID NLRI, can cause disadvantages to SR-MPLS. [comment Now the BGP EPE Peer Node info is advertised with SRv6 SID NLRI, it cause some disadvantages compared to SR-MPLE EPE. First, the number of NLRIs needed for SRv6 EPE may be more than MPLS EPE. This is because the NLRI's key is SRv6 SID, but for one EPE Peer node, there may be multiple SIDs, such as End.x with PSP, End.x with USD etc. Second, with MPLS EPE, for a direct EBGP Peer, only one NLRI is needed to advertise the link and its Peer node SID, link attributes. But with the current method for SRv6 EPE, at least two NLRIs are needed, one is the SRv6 SID NLRI for the Peer Node SID, the other is a Link NLRI with the End.X SID (the SID value may be the same while need to be advertised in different NLRIs) and link attributes.. At current stage maybe it is not suitable to change the encoding, but I suggest to give more detail description about the behavior of advertising the SRv6 Peer node SID and the Peer adjacency SID with corresponding NLRIs for a direct peer and for a peer established on loopback. 3. Figure 12: SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV Format Figure 13: SRv6 BGP Peer End.X SID TLV Flags Format [comment]As Figure 13 is about the Flags of SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV, its name may be changed to SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV Flags Format If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? |
|
2021-05-25
|
07 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
|
2021-05-25
|
07 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by OPSDIR |
|
2021-05-25
|
07 | Susan Hares | Requested Early review by INTDIR |
|
2021-05-25
|
07 | Susan Hares | Template date: 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Standards Why is … Template date: 1 November 2019. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Standards Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Technical Summary: Segment Routing (SR) over IPv6 (SRv6) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within various topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological or functional sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the various protocols such as BGP, IS-IS and OSPFv3. BGP Link-state (BGP-LS) address-family solution for SRv6 is similar to BGP-LS for SR for MPLS data-plane. This draft defines extensions to the BGP-LS to advertise SRv6 Segments along with their behaviors and other attributes via BGP. Working Group Summary: WG support has strong for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-07.txt This draft is a part of the BGP-LS work for SRv6. Four implementations of this draft exist (Cisco IOS-Xr, Huawei VRP, GoBGP, GoBMP) Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? There are 4 implementations of the protocol. The specific details of the implementations can be found at: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext%20implementations MIB doctor review: None required Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Susan Hares Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? |
|
2021-03-25
|
07 | Ketan Talaulikar | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-07.txt |
|
2021-03-25
|
07 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar) |
|
2021-03-25
|
07 | Ketan Talaulikar | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-03-08
|
06 | Ketan Talaulikar | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-06.txt |
|
2021-03-08
|
06 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar) |
|
2021-03-08
|
06 | Ketan Talaulikar | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-11-17
|
05 | Susan Hares | Tag Other - see Comment Log cleared. |
|
2020-11-17
|
05 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
|
2020-11-14
|
05 | Ketan Talaulikar | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-05.txt |
|
2020-11-14
|
05 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar) |
|
2020-11-14
|
05 | Ketan Talaulikar | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-11-13
|
Jenny Bui | Posted related IPR disclosure Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions and draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext | |
|
2020-11-01
|
04 | Susan Hares | links to draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-11 at the IESG. |
|
2020-11-01
|
04 | Susan Hares | Tag Other - see Comment Log set. |
|
2020-11-01
|
04 | Susan Hares | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
|
2020-11-01
|
04 | Susan Hares | Notification list changed to shares@ndzh.com because the document shepherd was set |
|
2020-11-01
|
04 | Susan Hares | Document shepherd changed to Susan Hares |
|
2020-11-01
|
04 | Ketan Talaulikar | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt |
|
2020-11-01
|
04 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar) |
|
2020-11-01
|
04 | Ketan Talaulikar | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-07-10
|
03 | Ketan Talaulikar | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-03.txt |
|
2020-07-10
|
03 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ketan Talaulikar) |
|
2020-07-10
|
03 | Ketan Talaulikar | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-07-10
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2020-01-07
|
02 | Ketan Talaulikar | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-02.txt |
|
2020-01-07
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-01-07
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, " daniel.bernier@bell.ca" <daniel.bernier@bell.ca>, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant@cisco.com>, Gaurav … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, " daniel.bernier@bell.ca" <daniel.bernier@bell.ca>, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant@cisco.com>, Gaurav Dawra <gdawra.ietf@gmail.com>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com> |
|
2020-01-07
|
02 | Ketan Talaulikar | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-10-01
|
Jenny Bui | Posted related IPR disclosure: Cisco's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext | |
|
2019-07-07
|
01 | Ketan Talaulikar | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-01.txt |
|
2019-07-07
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-07-07
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, " daniel.bernier@bell.ca" <daniel.bernier@bell.ca>, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant@cisco.com>, Gaurav … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, " daniel.bernier@bell.ca" <daniel.bernier@bell.ca>, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant@cisco.com>, Gaurav Dawra <gdawra.ietf@gmail.com>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com> |
|
2019-07-07
|
01 | Ketan Talaulikar | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-06-02
|
00 | Susan Hares | This document now replaces draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext instead of None |
|
2019-06-02
|
00 | Ketan Talaulikar | New version available: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-00.txt |
|
2019-06-02
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
|
2019-05-31
|
00 | Ketan Talaulikar | Set submitter to "Ketan Talaulikar <ketant@cisco.com>", replaces to draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext and sent approval email to group chairs: idr-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2019-05-31
|
00 | Ketan Talaulikar | Uploaded new revision |