draft: draft-chen-idr-bgp-sr-policy-cp-validity
Type: Proposed Standard
WG status: Individual draft
call for adoption: authors feel ready, needs revision (-04) + Check for Spring
current version: 04, Needs -05
spring document: draft-chen-spring-sr-policy-cp-validity
Early Allocation: needs early allocation
implementations: H3C and ZTE (2 implementations)
bgp-ls draft: none
The technical issues from -03 review remain. Please address these
in -05.
draft: draft-chen-idr-bgp-sr-policy-cp-validity
Status: Needs -04 to resolve issues.
implementations: unknown
email: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/rRev0V44j0jNoQY6B07nA61MRkg/
Authors: 5
All Technical issues from -02 have been resolved. These issues need to be resolvedin -04.
Section 3:
old text:/
/Type: to be assigned by IANA./
New text:/
/Type: TBD1 (to be assigned by IANA)./
section 5:
Old text:/
TBD CP Validity Sub-TLV This document/
New text:/
TBD1 CP Validity Sub-TLV This document/
Can this Sub-TLV go in any other Tunnel-Encaps Attribute TLV than SR Policy?
I suspect the answer to this question is "no". You simply need to specify this in section 2 or 3.
This sub-TLV provides a role in validating and choosing Active SR Policy paths from candidate paths
This validation is not at the BGP peer, but in the SRPM. Your text needs to indicate this point.
Section 4 should indicate that it is the SRPM in the headend that is making use of this Sub-TLV.
Consider two questions:
If the headend uses configuration to set these values, should a Yang module be created that augments BGP SR implementations? You do not have to create the module, merely indicate that it is useful.
If bgp-ls would be helpful in monitoring the headend setting of this value, please indicate how it would be useful.
please update from draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi to RFC9830.
draft: draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-bgp-sr-policy-cp-validity
Status: needs revision (-03)
implementations: unknown
allocation status: needs early allocation
email: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/k_kjp14Bu_x_ysP1PXmN0s7rXzg/
Authors: 5
draft-chen-spring-sr-policy-cp-validity requested WG adoption 7/26.
What is the status of the WG adoption?
Please replace draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy with
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi.
The total length must be 6. Please address this in your next text.
Please replace draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy with
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi.
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi calls out the protection of critical information.
CP Validity Sub-TLV is a critical pieces of information.
Please add text that indicates this point. It will help
you read the latest version of draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi.
Problem: English verb-subject tense alignment
old text:/ SR Policy architecture are specified in [RFC9256]. /
new text:/ SR Policy architecture is specified in [RFC9256]. /