Note: I am going to ask the authors to change draft name to:
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-inter-as-topology-ext
Version: -22
status: - Waiting for WG LC, -23 needed prior to WG LC due to IANA issues
next steps:
Authors change to fix IANA issues (required) and should fix editorial.
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext
IDR chair has requested early Directorate reviews for return by May 4th.
IDR chair will request IDR Chair review
If IDR Chair Review has no commets, we'll start WG LC on 1/9/2026
If IDR Chair Review has comments, then I'll post the comments to
the shepherd review page.
I find no technical issues in the text. All of the parameters are specified carefully.
Well done!
Status: Must change prior to WG LC
The following sections need to specify the registry group as well as the registry:
Old text:/
IANA has allocated codepoint for the Stub Link NLRI type from the
"BGP-LS NLRI Types" registry as follows:/
New text:/
IANA has allocated codepoint for the Stub Link NLRI type from the
"BGP-LS NLRI Types" registry in the “Border Gateway Protocol –
Link State (BGP-LS) Parameter” Group: /
Old text/.
IANA has allocated codepoints for the following TLVs from "BGP-LS
NLRI and Attribute TLVs" registry:/
New text:/
IANA has allocated codepoints for the following TLVs from "BGP-LS
NLRI and Attribute TLVs" registry in the “Border Gateway Protocol –
Link State (BGP-LS) Parameter” Group: /
What: Clarify what test by including the closing parenthesis.
Status: SHOULD be added prior to WG LC
Old text: /
Therefore, the "Identifier" values for the two half-
links (refer section 5.2.2 of [RFC9552] of the inter-AS link could be
different depending on the configuration of Identifiers for the two
IGP domains./
New text:/
Therefore, the "Identifier" values for the two half-
links (refer to section 5.2.2 of [RFC9552]) of the inter-AS link could be
different depending on the configuration of Identifiers for the two
IGP domains./
**What: ** add correct grammar (“the”, commas, periods at the end of the sub-bullets).
**Status of changes: ** I can WG LC without, but it will need to be done eventually.
Old text: /
New text:/
the Autonomous System (TLV 512) [RFC9552].
- the OSPF Area-ID (TLV 514) [RFC9552] to be included only in the case of
OSPF, when the Inter-AS TE LSA from which information is sourced is
being flooded with an area-scope. It is not included when the LSA is
flooded with AS-scope./
Old text:/
- IGP Router ID (TLV 515) encoded for either OSPF or IS-IS depending
on the source protocol as specified in section 5.2.1.4 of [RFC9552]./
New text:/
- the IGP Router ID (TLV 515) encoded for either OSPF or IS-IS, depending
on the source protocol as specified in section 5.2.1.4 of [RFC9552]./
Old text:/
- One or both of IPv4 and IPv6 Router-ID of the ASBR using TLV 1028
and/or 1029 [RFC9552], depending on whether the ASBR is configured
with one or both of the IPv4 and IPv6 TE Router-IDs (Note: while
[RFC9552] introduced these TLVs for use in the BGP-LS Attribute, this
document also leverages the same TLVs for use in the NLRI)/
new text:/
- One or both of IPv4 and IPv6 Router-ID of the ASBR using TLV 1028
and/or 1029 [RFC9552], depending on whether the ASBR is configured
with one or both of the IPv4 and IPv6 TE Router-IDs. (Note: While
[RFC9552] introduced these TLVs for use in the BGP-LS attribute, this
document also leverages the same TLVs for use in the NLRI.)/
**What: **grammar change
**Status: **I can WG LC without the changes.
Old text:/
Remote AS Number (TLV 270)
One or both of IPv4 and IPv6 Remote ASBR ID using TLV 271 and/or
272, depending on whether the Remote ASBR is configured with one or
both of the IPv4 and IPv6 TE Router-IDs./
New text:/
the Remote AS Number (TLV 270), and
One or both of IPv4 and IPv6 Remote ASBR ID using TLV 271 and/or
272, depending on whether the Remote ASBR is configured with one or
both of the IPv4 and IPv6 TE Router-IDs./
Why change: “as in current deployments” will age with time.
Best to leave it out.
Old text:/
The Remote AS Number field has 4 octets. When only 2 octets are used
for the AS number (for example, when such information is advertised
from OSPF, as in current deployments), the left (high-order) 2 octets
MUST be set to 0./
New text:/
The Remote AS Number field has 4 octets. When only 2 octets are used
for the AS number (for example, when such information is advertised
from OSPF), the left (high-order) 2 octets
MUST be set to 0.
Security section needs to consider that the
Stub Link, and the characteristics of the Stub link
are critical information.
Suggested text at end of Security section.
old text:/
Using the passive-interface features or configuring the
Traffic Engineering (TE) parameters on the interconnect links will
not provide the real-time Information for this single Administrative
Domain./
new text:/
The single Administrative domain consisting of two AS passing
information about the Stub-link characteristics does not
cause problems within a "walled garden". However, the
Stub-link NLRI and characteristics (Link/local identifier,
IPv4 Interface Address, IPv4 Neighbor Address,
IPv6 interface Address, IPv6 Neighbor Address,
Multi-topology Identifier, Remote-AS Number,
IPv4 Remote ASBRI ID, and IPv6 Remote ASBR ID)
are critical information to a network.
As such, operators should handle this critical
information in a way that restricts it to the
walled garden. /