Subject: [Idr] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-13: (with COMMENT)

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 20:13:24 -0800

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-13: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see how the MUST in this receiving behavior in Section 4.2.

"However, a BGP Prefix-SID attribute corresponding to the BGP IPv6 address
family without an IPv6 SID TLV MUST be ignored."

makes sense with the MAY in the sending behavior

"A BGP speaker that originates an IPv6 prefix with the BGP Prefix-SID attribute
MAY include the IPv6 SID TLV."

Can you please clarify?

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 14:35:58 +0000

Hi Suresh, 

On 2/6/18, 11:13 PM, "Suresh Krishnan" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    

    

    Can you please clarify?

It is expected that SRv6 will have future use cases, IETF specifications, and TLVs. These IETF specifications would update this specification. Would it make sense to make both of these "SHOULD"? 

Thanks,
Acee

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 16:11:24 +0000

Hi Acee,

> On Feb 7, 2018, at 9:35 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Suresh, 
> 

Sounds good to me. I was just concerned that the receiver drops the packet based on the absence of a TLV that is entirely optional to send.

Thanks
Suresh