suehares
commented
3 months ago RTG-DIR Issue-3: Editorial issue Shepherd's comment: The change in the text for sections 9-11 below makes the text less clear due to the ";" in the text. I am noting that my personal choice would have been the original text. This is why the author probably had the -00.txt. The text helped clear the issue with the RTG-DIR review.
Change in text: The policy advertisement is, in most but not all cases, tailored for a specific policy headend. In this case, the advertisement may be sent on a BGP session to that headend and not propagated any further./
to the following -04.txt : The policy advertisement is, in most but not all cases, tailored for a specific policy headend; such an advertisement may be sent on a BGP session to that headend and not propagated any further./
RTG-DIR Issue 3: Introduction (Section 1) in paragraph 9-11
Text:/ While for simplicity we may write that BGP advertises an SR Policy, it has to be understood that BGP advertises a candidate path of an SR policy and that this SR Policy might have several other candidate paths provided via BGP (via an NLRI with a different distinguisher as defined in Section 2.1), PCEP, NETCONF, or local policy configuration.
Typically, a controller defines the set of policies and advertises them to policy headend routers (typically ingress routers). These policy advertisements use the BGP extensions defined in this document. The policy advertisement is, in most but not all cases, tailored for a specific policy headend. In this case, the advertisement may be sent on a BGP session to that headend and not propagated any further./
Jeffrey: "in most cases" and "in this case" - are they the same?
Alternatively, a router (i.e., a BGP egress router) advertises SR Policies representing paths to itself. In this case, it is possible to send the policy to each headend over a BGP session to that headend, without requiring any further propagation of the policy.
Jeffrey: What's the difference from the previous one? There is no difference whether it is sent from an egress router or a controller should not matter, right?