Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05
review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-rtgdir-early-mcbride-2024-01-04-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05 |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | 05 (document currently at 16) | |
Type | Early Review | |
Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
Deadline | 2024-01-04 | |
Requested | 2023-12-14 | |
Requested by | Susan Hares | |
Authors | Dhananjaya Rao , Swadesh Agrawal | |
I-D last updated | 2024-01-04 | |
Completed reviews |
Secdir Early review of -05
by Yoav Nir
(diff)
Tsvart Early review of -05 by Brian Trammell (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Mike McBride (diff) Opsdir Early review of -08 by Yingzhen Qu (diff) Opsdir Early review of -02 by Yingzhen Qu (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Ben Niven-Jenkins (diff) Genart Last Call review of -11 by Joel M. Halpern (diff) |
|
Comments |
This document will start a 2nd WG LC during January (after January 4th). The draft is experimental, but there are multiple implementations. See the implementation report at (https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car/). |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Mike McBride |
State | Completed | |
Request | Early review on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/K2LS2Re91wlMblv_VxZ2q0wZuKg | |
Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 16) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2024-01-04 |
review-ietf-idr-bgp-car-05-rtgdir-early-mcbride-2024-01-04-00
Hello, Looking good to me. The following are a few of my rtgdir early review comments, for your consideration, using OLD/NEW: 1. Introduction: OLD: BGP CAR distributes distinct routes to a destination network endpoint such as a PE router, for different intents or colors. NEW: BGP CAR distributes distinct routes to a destination network endpoint, such as a PE router, for different intents or colors. OLD: BGP CAR adheres to the flat routing model of BGP-IP/LU... NEW: BGP CAR adheres to the flat routing model of BGP-IP/LU(Labeled Unicast)... *Unless you think LU is as understood as IP and having no need for definition. 1.1 Terminology (Resolution vs Steering): OLD: In this document and consistently with the terminology of the SR Policy document [RFC9256], steering is used to describe the mapping of a service route onto a BGP CAR path while the term resolution is preserved for the mapping of an inter-domain BGP CAR route on an intra- domain color-aware path. NEW: In this document, and consistently with the terminology of the SR Policy document [RFC9256], steering is used to describe the mapping of a service route onto a BGP CAR path. The term resolution is preserved for the mapping of an inter-domain BGP CAR route on an intra- domain color-aware path. 1.2 Illustration OLD: *Control-Plane: a node should not install a (E, C) path if it does not need it. NEW: *Control-Plane: a node should not install a (E, C) path if it's not participating in that color-aware path. 2.11. Error Handling OLD: When the error determined allows for the router to skip the malformed NLRI(s) and continue processing of the rest of the update message, then it MUST handle such malformed NLRIs as 'Treat-as- withdraw'. NEW: When the error determined allows for the router to skip the malformed NLRI(s), and continue processing of the rest of the update message, then it MUST handle such malformed NLRIs as 'Treat-as- withdraw'. 7.1.1. Routed Service SID OLD: The intent-aware transport path to the locator of the egress PE is provided by underlay IP routing, for instance, IGP Flex-Algo [RFC9350] within a domain, and BGP-CAR across multiple IGP domains or BGP ASNs. NEW: The intent-aware transport path to the locator of the egress PE is provided by underlay IP routing such as IGP Flex-Algo [RFC9350] (within a domain) and BGP-CAR (across multiple IGP domains or BGP ASNs). *this makes more sense to me anyway.