Subject: [Idr] BGP-LS Drafts - Getting around a Road Block

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 06:31:07 -0500

IDR WG Last Calls and adoptions for the following IDR BGP LS related drafts
have hit a road block due two issues: concerns regarding message size and
error handling problems: 

WG LCs

.         draft-ietf-bgp-ls-segement-routing-rld-03.txt, 

.         draft-ietf-bgp-ls-segement-routing-md-02.txt , 

.         draft-ietf-bgp-idr-te-lsp-distribution-09.txt 

Adoptions: 

.         draft-ketant-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr, 

.         draft-wu-idr-bgp-segement-allocation-ext

.         draft-li-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions

.         draft-ketant-idr-bgp-ls-flex-alo 

One solution to the message size issue is to simply standardize
draft-ietf-bgp-extended-message-27.txt with the level of implementation
experience we have at this point.   A WG call for this will start today. 

Since the error handling issues are common to BGP-LS, Sue asked Alvaro to
discuss the error handling during December on IDR, SPRING, and LSVR.  On
12/19/2018 Alvaro Retana sent a query regarding error handling for BGP-LS as
he reviewed draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext.    AFAWK (As far as
we know), there was no clear agreement on the problem or potential
solutions.    The chairs will be discussing further work on the error
handling issues with other chairs of groups impacted (BESS, SPRING, LSVR).  

.  In order to not slow down any BGP-LS or segment routing drafts, the IDR
WG will "provisionally" complete WG LC and adoptions. 

.         For WG LC, provisional means that we will complete all other
facets of the WG LC process and get an early AD review. After IDR at IETF
104, the chairs will suggest changes across all drafts. 

.         For WG Adoption, provisional means we will adopt the drafts with
the caveat that the error handling may need to change. 

This message is a WG call for comments on this approach to get us past the
BGP-LS draft road block. 

Sue Hares and John Scudder