search

ietf-wg-idr / draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct

1 stars 2 forks source link

github-issues - corrections #19

Closed suehares closed 1 year ago

suehares commented 1 year ago

[DONE] https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/3 F3-CT-Issue-3: BGP-CT and RTC #3 Expand Section 18.3 in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-00 to indicate the lack of need for “an IP address specific RT” for scenario given by Jeffrey Zhang. Clarifying section 14.2 to address Swadesh comments regarding RTs with “: Clarifying should be alignment with F3-CT-Issue-2 Addressed by sections: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct.html#section-14.2 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct.html#section-18.3

Should annotate 18.3 is now 19.3 and 14.2 is 15.2.

suehares commented 1 year ago

[DONE]https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/7 (overlap with issue 5) F3-WG-Issue-1-CT: New Address Families [Shunwan Zhuang] #7 Provide an example of incremental deployment in domains 1, 2, and 3. Suppose that only domains 1 and 3 have been enhanced to CT - Add example of incremental deployment to draft.

Addressed by sections: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct.html#name-deployment-considerations-2

New family update: No specific changes regarding the text only an example of a new family needs to be included. One example of a new family is the ttps://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-sr-p2mp-policy-00.html#name-p2mp-policy-route-route-type (section 3 of the document).
Sue's update: draft-ietf-idr-sr-p2mp-policy does not provide a good use case with an example of a new NLRI family having problems with CT. No update for this draft.

Add the changes to section 20 Section 20.1 - to the end Section 20.2 - Looks at Managing Intent at Service and transport domain This section needs to be supported by Intent definition in section 2 (based on Spring or IRTF) and section 19. It may be necessary to link this to section 18. Section 20.3 - does represent Shunwan's original discussion.

suehares commented 1 year ago

The following example [DONE]https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/8 F3-WG-Issue-2-CT: Support for SR-v6 (Jingrong Xie) #8 Addressed by sections: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct.html#name-srv6-support-2 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct.html#name-bgp-ct-deployment-in-srv6-ne draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct.html#name-carrying-multiple-encapsulat

Section 18 (name-srv6-support-2), section 20.3. and appendix D should work together to import the suggestions on colorful prefix allocation from draft-wang-cpr-01.

Appendix D seems to be a good place to include the following examples: 1) current example 2) example which has the 3 AS topology (which is similar to 19.1 topology) with the gold and bronze pathways in different mechanisms per topology

3) transition from the 2/1 example to CT based transport using locators.

suehares commented 1 year ago

[DONE]https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/11 F3-WG-Issue-5-CT: Technology BGP-CT and CAR are based [upon] and implications [Jeffrey Zhang] #11

I cannot find "name-bgp-ct-deployment-in-srv6-ne" - Is this appendix D?

suehares commented 1 year ago

[DONE]https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/10 F3-WG-Issue-4-CT: Intent at Service level [Ketan Talaulikar] #10 Addressed by sections: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct.html#name-managing-intent-at-service-a draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct.html#name-signaling-intent-across-pe-c

Move 20.1 to later section. Add transport to the title 20.2.2., 20.2.3. RFC 9315 definition to your intent definition in section 2.

Chairs needs to call for Intent 5,1 (https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color-01.html) versus IRTF 9315

suehares commented 1 year ago

[DONE]https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/11 F3-WG-Issue-5-CT: Technology BGP-CT and CAR are based [upon] and implications [Jeffrey Zhang] #11

action item for Chair to check with Jeffrey Zhang - is collapse or non-collapse. Check for multicast. Model used by CT scales.

suehares commented 1 year ago

DONE]https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/issues/14 F3-WG-Issue-8-CT: Scaling and Expected Route size #14 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct.html#name-update-packing-consideration Addressed by sections: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct.html#name-scaling-considerations-2 draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct.html#name-scaling-using-bgp-mpls-names

[Prior WG LC – sending to small group: Bruno, Jeff - 1st pass, 2nd objectors (Robert Raszuk)). Send to Jim Uttarro - Section c.]

Add 1) type of route mixture - provider transport endpoints (loopbacks or other) route mixture Put text from github into draft.

suehares commented 1 year ago

split normative into normative and informative.

normative - if you use it in the protocol mechanisms. If protocol mechanism + optional, normative. Information - if provides information (sizing route packing).

suehares commented 1 year ago

closed with the publication of draft-ietf-idr-ct-12