Template date: 1 November 2019.
Date of Shepherd's report: 10/12/2022
(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, deployment experience,
standards person) review so the shepherd is confident in reviews performed.
Why 6 authors:
This draft was created by the interaction of authors and implementers from
multiple companies. All 6 authors were key people in a joint meetings to create
the draft. Ketan (as editor) has taken on the challenge of interacting with
IETF folks and getting agreement. Every time he revises the document,
he goes back to his co-authors to get agreement on text and
interoperability of features and language. This seems to be inline with the
best practice of IETF.
Early reviews:
1) RTG-DIR: (Adrian Farrell (a past RTG AD)) status: Has issues.
Summary: The approach described in this document is consistent with the
body of BGP-LS work, but I think it is important to note that the
mechanism set out here differs slightly from the mechanism defined to
do similar function with SR-MPLS. This distinction is clearly made in
Appendix A. However, the WG chairs and AD will want to be sure that the
WG recognize this difference and are OK with having two slightly
different mechanisms running side by side.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-07-rtgdir-early-farrel-2021-05-29/
Shepherd's comments: 2 week confirmation on IDR WG issue (9/30/2022 to
10/13/2022)
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/xzdrE3vOnPeYxhVg6hdq6ml3118/ [No
issues raised from 9/30 to 10/13] Shepherd closed the call:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/CbVorZnCvH16Msf6t5t8zqA7LT4/
2) OPS-DIR - awaiting assignment (Dan Romascanu (a past OPS-NM AD)) status:
ready
Summary: Well written, but could use an abbreviation section that explains
abbreviations in 4 associated documents. Section 10 is quite rich in operator
insight. review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-08-opsdir-early-romascanu-2021-06-24/
3) INT-DIR (reviewer: Jouni Korhonen - No response)
4) SEC-DIR (reviewer: Stephen Farrell (a past Security AD)) status: Ready
Stephen indicated he no relevant knowledge regarding BGP-LS.
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.comhttps://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/T7chRoEcXFfk06jI_ilH-60dEG8
Hani Elmalky [Ericsson]
hani.elmalky@gmail.com
Hani: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yudApGY7YHnbsKPL5aIbKYVzzVI/
Arjun Sreekantiah
arjunhrs@gmail.com
Les: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/F6A9Ep21DP59RJMjv06-NHaA4Bs
Les Ginsberg (Cisco)
ginsberg@cisco.com
Les: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/F6A9Ep21DP59RJMjv06-NHaA4Bs
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-10draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-15
Normative references in RFC editor's queue:
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-extdraft-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-10draft-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
