I support this document progressing as an Informational draft, modulo the pending questions to be answered (noted below).
I see ‘Informational' as better fit, because it describes use cases of LBW whose normative procedures are listed in draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth. It is desirable that the normative procedures listed in the LBW draft are not overridden in this use-case draft. Specifically, the following line in sec 4.2 seems a little concerning to me. > 4.2. for consistency reason, all BGP paths of a prefix MUST use a > contributing bandwidth based on the same source (e.g.: all paths are using > contributing bandwidth from the same function). This assumes the implementations maintain meta-state about whether a LBW was added to the route by auto-sense, import-policy or received-on-wire. That may not be the case in all implementations. Also it is not clear what is the purpose of this ‘same source’ restriction. It looks wrong to me. IMO, irrespective of how the LBW was arrived at, it should be comparable. The following email thread has discussed this point already (along with couple other related points) and there has been some agreement to address it, but I don’t see an update to the draft yet: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/Z-FlANErzK8U0rs5D3UfV9imqYw/ I think addressing the open questions in this email thread and updating the draft - will also give clarity on the informational status of the draft. Thanks Kaliraj -- From: Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> Date: Monday, March 23, 2026 at 8:26 AM To: BESS <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, idr-chairs <[email protected]> Subject: [bess] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-ebgp-dmz extended to 30 March, 2026. While we have received a few positive replies about advancing this draft to publication, response is very light and difficult to use to gauge consensus. Similar to the RFC 4360 draft, we're extending the last call to 30 March. Please respond to this thread as to whether this document SHOULD or SHOULD NOT proceed to publication. -- Jeff On Mar 3, 2026, at 12:07, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-ebgp-dmz/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-ebgp-dmz/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AG4aBjxiGNRmOHO9W0Ol93Ijbjgw8-54S5Nw7jv5Xpj2ke3zVZCCuFoti__qvi__FK3fPRmhz333$> As the shepherd for the DMZ draft, this starts a working group last call for draft-ietf-bess-ebgp-dmz.. This last call ends on 16 March. Please indicate to the mailing list whether you think this document is ready to advance to publication or not. The shepherd writeup for this document is located here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-ebgp-dmz/shepherdwriteup/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-ebgp-dmz/shepherdwriteup/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AG4aBjxiGNRmOHO9W0Ol93Ijbjgw8-54S5Nw7jv5Xpj2ke3zVZCCuFoti__qvi__FK3fPT1RL6q9$> Note that we are still waiting for an IPR attestation from Arie Vayner. Other working group members that are aware of undisclosed IPR are requested to attest to it as part of IETF BCP 78/79. As per BESS practices, this last call is also polling for the existence of implementations of this draft. See this prior note on the practice: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AG4aBjxiGNRmOHO9W0Ol93Ijbjgw8-54S5Nw7jv5Xpj2ke3zVZCCuFoti__qvi__FK3fPaDTEjMF$> Please also note that there is a related last call happening in IDR relating to RFC 4360-bis. As BESS WG members are aware, the DMZ work was motivated to address the transitivity aspects of the BGP link-bandwidth extended community as part of the DMZ aggregation procedures. The link bandwidth draft has completed IDR last call and has been sent to the IESG for publication. The related work to address originating non-transitive BGP extended communities was moved into the RFC 4360-bis work. Thus, if you believe DMZ should progress, please respond to the IDR last call on 4360-bis to help both works advance together. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fftaCU5jpiYynWFfgex0dkjXB4E/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fftaCU5jpiYynWFfgex0dkjXB4E/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!AG4aBjxiGNRmOHO9W0Ol93Ijbjgw8-54S5Nw7jv5Xpj2ke3zVZCCuFoti__qvi__FK3fPe-pa_Mh$> -- Jeff
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
