A requirements doc would be a place to describe the behavior of the “system”.
Jim Uttaro From: Idr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 2:40 PM To: Rob Shakir <[email protected]> Cc: idr@ietf. org <[email protected]>; SPRING WG <[email protected]>; Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Idr] [spring] Error Handling for BGP-LS with Segment Routing On January 3, 2019 at 5:40:23 PM, Rob Shakir ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>) wrote: Describing these compromises is, of course, a good idea. However, it's not clear where this description would go -- we don't really have a document that describes this overall system and how it might be implemented today<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__airmail.calendar_2019-2D01-2D04-252012-3A00-3A00-2520EST&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=s7ZzB4JbPv3nYuoSx5Gy8Q&m=YPkMlAzgEmV6UHI4lGHe5dQ-N93JfeFuHAnSN6GcHlA&s=rOkYxM7fv1EaibU0ZmaZmT9J4zGKG81KNpHItRnP5II&e=>. Right… I started reviewing the documents with BGP-LS extensions for SR…starting with draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext, which is the first BGP-LS extensions document to be sent for Publication where the application is explicitly to "construct the end-to-end path (with its associated SIDs) that need to be applied to an incoming packet to achieve the desired end-to-end forwarding”. All other BGP-LS extension documents have in general followed the “informative” tone of rfc7752. I don’t necessarily think that the description of the system belongs there…but there’s no other place to put it, at least not currently. The SR Problem Statement (rfc7855) and the SR Architecture (rfc8402) both just make general statements about the need to support centralized and hybrid (and distributed, of course) control planes — they don’t go into more specifics… … Alvaro.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
