Les: As a co-author Ketan preferred the text:/ Use of any other TLVs as Local Node Descriptors or inter-AS Link Descriptors may cause challenges in the correlation of the two inter-AS Link NLRI half-links when the BGP-LS Producer implementations vary./
With your OK, I will now finish my shepherd document and send this to the IESG. I will let Ketan talk to Gunter (the RTG AD monitoring this draft) Thanks for your excellent review! Sue From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 12:05 PM To: Susan Hares <[email protected]>; Aijun Wang <[email protected]> Cc: 'Ketan Talaulikar' <[email protected]>; 'lsr' <[email protected]>; 'idr-chairs' <[email protected]>; 'Dongjie' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Lsr] Re: Request for comment on BGP-LS draft: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-32 - (1 Week for comment: 5/26 to 6/1) Sue (and everyone) – Thanx for the prompt response to my comments. I believe the changes address my concerns. I would add the following comment regarding the text you mention below: “Use of any other TLVs as Local Node Descriptors or inter-AS Link Descriptors may cause challenges in the correlation of the two inter-AS Link NLRI half-links when the BGP-LS Producer implementations vary.” It is a rather odd statement to be made in a Standards track RFC. It seems to be saying “what is specified here may not work (under certain conditions)”. The way I interpret this – which may not be accurate – is the following: * The procedures defined in Section 8 are optional and may not be supported by all implementations * Unless all implementations do support Section 8 procedures, use of the TLVs specified in Section 8 may result in unpredictable behavior This is outside of the comments I originally made – so it does not impact resolution of those comments – but I am wondering if a clearer statement regarding this might improve the document. Les From: Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 7:06 AM To: Aijun Wang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: 'Ketan Talaulikar' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; 'lsr' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; 'idr-chairs' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; 'Dongjie' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Lsr] Re: Request for comment on BGP-LS draft: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-32 - (1 Week for comment: 5/26 to 6/1) Les: Specific question to you. Does -33 with the current changes address your earlier point? Sue PS – Aijun – as shepherd, I need to interact with Les to verify the change meets his approval. Please let me take the lead on the discussion. Thank you for your patience. ====== Please note that one section in -33 will be reverted to -32. Current text:/ Any other TLVs as Local Node Descriptors or inter-AS Link Descriptors may cause challenges in the correlation of the two inter-AS Link NLRI half-links when the BGP-LS Producer implementations vary, and MUST NOT be used. / Original Use of any other TLVs as Local Node Descriptors or inter-AS Link Descriptors may cause challenges in the correlation of the two inter-AS Link NLRI half-links when the BGP-LS Producer implementations vary./ From: Aijun Wang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 5:22 AM To: 'Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: 'Ketan Talaulikar' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; 'lsr' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; 'idr-chairs' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; 'Dongjie' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Lsr] Re: Request for comment on BGP-LS draft: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-32 - (1 Week for comment: 5/26 to 6/1) Hi, Les: We have updated the draft again. Please review whether it addresses your concerns: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-33<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__link.wtturl.cn_-3Ftarget-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fdatatracker.ietf.org-252Fdoc-252Fhtml-252Fdraft-2Dietf-2Didr-2Dbgpls-2Dinter-2Das-2Dtopology-2Dext-2D33-26scene-3Dim-26aid-3D582478-26lang-3Dzh&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=WtU0rhkmanCF9kc_FP3JQSC3ASU7nhp53GYFVYMgBPgW_wFFTe1MSr9U-xOZnJEb&s=7RPvOiH6mGHQ0NX0LyqzUJPy5ONL-LDi6cWJgsk85io&e=> If any points remain unclear, please explicitly list outstanding items that are still missing. Thanks Sue and Ketan’s suggestions! Aijun From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 10:42 PM To: Aijun Wang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; lsr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; idr-chairs <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Dongjie <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Lsr] Re: Request for comment on BGP-LS draft: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-32 - (1 Week for comment: 5/26 to 6/1) Aijun – To address my concerns some changes need to be made to the draft – so “No” – your email response does not resolve the issues raised. Sue seems to understand this – please work with her and your co-authors (as she suggested). Les From: Aijun Wang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 2:54 AM To: Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; lsr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; idr-chairs <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Dongjie <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Re: Request for comment on BGP-LS draft: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-32 - (1 Week for comment: 5/26 to 6/1) Hi, Sue: I have replied Les’s concern at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/MnJoprNHwWuLTRrZc0C1C23zDL4/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailarchive.ietf.org_arch_msg_lsr_MnJoprNHwWuLTRrZc0C1C23zDL4_&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=WtU0rhkmanCF9kc_FP3JQSC3ASU7nhp53GYFVYMgBPgW_wFFTe1MSr9U-xOZnJEb&s=qbovuZu7WMCRiCP82rBwOwVT4ko3oqggULvFs7hsZw0&e=>. And, to Les: Does the reply in the above mail address your concerns? If not, please state the remaining issues. If it addresses your concerns, would you like to confirm? Aijun Wang China Telecom On May 28, 2026, at 03:07, Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Les: Thank you for your excellent review of the document. This is an inconsistency, and the authors must address it before we proceed. As you mention: ----------------------------- - One or both of IPv4 and IPv6 Router-ID of the ASBR using TLV 1028 and/or 1029 [RFC9552], depending on whether the ASBR is configured with one or both of the IPv4 and IPv6 TE Router-IDs. (Note: while [RFC9552] introduced these TLVs for use in the BGP-LS attribute, this document also leverages the same TLVs for use in the NLRI.) The authors should take this offline and resolve this with me. I will come back with an answer to LSR. This draft will be held up while this point is resolved. Sue From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 4:39 PM To: Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Aijun Wang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: lsr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; idr-chairs <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Lsr] Re: Request for comment on BGP-LS draft: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-32 - (1 Week for comment: 5/26 to 6/1) Sue – Section 5 mandates that TLVs 1028/1029 be present. Section 8 says in the case of BGP/Static everything is as defined in Section 5 except for the protocol ID. I am just trying to resolve the two. ?? Les From: Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 1:11 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Aijun Wang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: lsr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; idr-chairs <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Lsr] Re: Request for comment on BGP-LS draft: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-32 - (1 Week for comment: 5/26 to 6/1) Les: #1 section 5 – the BGP-LS speaker is a BGP peer of the Controller. The BGP-LS speaker has either a directly connected interface with Inter-AS link or a static route (via a local interface) to the remote AS peer. Section 8 was written to clarify that this BGP peer (e.g. SB2) is source for the information. #2 – good catch. The inter-AS link is SB1-TB2. (I missed that one!) Sue From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:11 PM To: Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Aijun Wang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: lsr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; idr-chairs <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Lsr] Re: Request for comment on BGP-LS draft: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-32 - (1 Week for comment: 5/26 to 6/1) I wholeheartedly agree with Acee's points. It isn’t completely clear to me why the new Section 8 was written - as opposed to updating the existing Section 5. But if the authors/WG are OK with this presentation I won’t object - but two review points: 1)Section 5 states: "The following Sub-TLVs MUST be included as the Local Node Descriptors: ... - One or both of IPv4 and IPv6 Router-ID of the ASBR using TLV 1028 and/or 1029 [RFC9552], depending on whether the ASBR is configured with one or both of the IPv4 and IPv6 TE Router-IDs. (Note: while [RFC9552] introduced these TLVs for use in the BGP-LS attribute, this document also leverages the same TLVs for use in the NLRI.)” It isn't clear to me from looking at RFC 9086 where this information comes from in the case of “direct/static” as RFC 9086 specifies only TLV 516 for BGP Router ID. 2)Section 8 states: “Alignment between the two sides of the Inter-AS link (e.g. SB1 – TB1) …” I assume “TB1” is meant to be “TB2” as there is no node “TB1” in the diagram. Les >-----Original Message----- >From: Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 10:12 AM >To: Aijun Wang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; >Ketan Talaulikar ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >Cc: lsr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; idr-chairs ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Dongjie (Jimmy) ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >Subject: [Lsr] Re: Request for comment on BGP-LS draft: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls- >inter-as-topology-ext-32 - (1 Week for comment: 5/26 to 6/1) > >Aijun and Ketan: > >Acee (lsr co-chair) would like to confirm that section 8 and section 9 avoid >the >issues from LSR discussion on the IGP Stub-links draft? Would you please >respond to this email with your answer. > >Thanks, >Sue > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Acee Lindem <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 12:59 PM >To: Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >Cc: lsr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; idr-chairs ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Dongjie (Jimmy) ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ketan Talaulikar ><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >Subject: Re: [Lsr] Request for comment on BGP-LS draft: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls- >inter-as-topology-ext-32 - (1 Week for comment: 5/26 to 6/1) > >Hi Sue, > >> On May 26, 2026, at 12:39 PM, Susan Hares >> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Acee: >> >> If the data comes from IGP (OSPF and ISIS), the answer is yes. >> >> However, section 8 allows for an Inter-AS link information from a BGP peer >(BGP-LS from BGP only) to set the source on the inter-AS links as either >static or >"directly" connected. Please review sections 8 and 9. >> >> Do these two sections provide enough detail to avoid the issues from the IGP >Stub-links draft? > >I would think so and if the information were to advertised in OSPF or IS-IS, >the >existing TE encodings would be used. > >However, this is a good question for the authors. We don't want to rehash >these stub-links drafts under any circumstances. > >Thanks, >Acee > > > >> >> Sue >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Acee Lindem >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__acee.ietf-40gmail.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J-sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n-3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=XHwqK-Drj7w7cMqyDXZKjxlLfGXjGTxx3T-UuL-yCsQ&e=> >3A__acee.ietf-40gmail.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__acee.ietf-40gmail.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J-sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n-3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=XHwqK-Drj7w7cMqyDXZKjxlLfGXjGTxx3T-UuL-yCsQ&e=> >v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J-<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__acee.ietf-40gmail.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J-sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n-3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=XHwqK-Drj7w7cMqyDXZKjxlLfGXjGTxx3T-UuL-yCsQ&e=> >sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n-3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=XHwqK-<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__acee.ietf-40gmail.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J-sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n-3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=XHwqK-Drj7w7cMqyDXZKjxlLfGXjGTxx3T-UuL-yCsQ&e=> >Drj7w7cMqyDXZKjxlLfGXjGTxx3T-UuL-yCsQ&e=<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__acee.ietf-40gmail.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J-sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n-3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=XHwqK-Drj7w7cMqyDXZKjxlLfGXjGTxx3T-UuL-yCsQ&e=>> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 12:32 PM >> To: Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >> Cc: lsr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; idr-chairs >> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Dongjie (Jimmy) ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__jie.dong-<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__jie.dong-40huawei.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J-sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n-3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=HmcfjWaONcvjfOM3T0M9VjUMlj7bDdNl0zBc2zfMaEE&e=> >40huawei.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__jie.dong-40huawei.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J-sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n-3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=HmcfjWaONcvjfOM3T0M9VjUMlj7bDdNl0zBc2zfMaEE&e=> >v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J-<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__jie.dong-40huawei.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J-sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n-3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=HmcfjWaONcvjfOM3T0M9VjUMlj7bDdNl0zBc2zfMaEE&e=> >sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n-<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__jie.dong-40huawei.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J-sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n-3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=HmcfjWaONcvjfOM3T0M9VjUMlj7bDdNl0zBc2zfMaEE&e=> >3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=HmcfjWaONcvjfOM3T0M9VjUMlj7bDdNl0zBc2zf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__jie.dong-40huawei.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J-sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n-3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=HmcfjWaONcvjfOM3T0M9VjUMlj7bDdNl0zBc2zfMaEE&e=> >MaEE&e=<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__jie.dong-40huawei.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J-sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n-3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=HmcfjWaONcvjfOM3T0M9VjUMlj7bDdNl0zBc2zfMaEE&e=>>; > Ketan Talaulikar ><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ketant.ietf-<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ketant.ietf-40gmail.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J-sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n-3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=q4NxSEJ1gICgPdCBfJ6q7ftDKSDRtOi9WO5nNsRYsHs&e=> >40gmail.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ketant.ietf-40gmail.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J-sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n-3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=q4NxSEJ1gICgPdCBfJ6q7ftDKSDRtOi9WO5nNsRYsHs&e=> >v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J-<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ketant.ietf-40gmail.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J-sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n-3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=q4NxSEJ1gICgPdCBfJ6q7ftDKSDRtOi9WO5nNsRYsHs&e=> >sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n-<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ketant.ietf-40gmail.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J-sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n-3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=q4NxSEJ1gICgPdCBfJ6q7ftDKSDRtOi9WO5nNsRYsHs&e=> >3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=q4NxSEJ1gICgPdCBfJ6q7ftDKSDRtOi9WO5nNsRYs<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ketant.ietf-40gmail.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J-sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n-3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=q4NxSEJ1gICgPdCBfJ6q7ftDKSDRtOi9WO5nNsRYsHs&e=> >Hs&e=<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ketant.ietf-40gmail.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=3QxUPy-fV0G16Z4tIRByiA&m=gDz3_w0-LWdAfst4J-sYIhLbvN0V_XIbwu1VbmhUCJ-n-3BqtbWDbJ0t2oPFtFP9&s=q4NxSEJ1gICgPdCBfJ6q7ftDKSDRtOi9WO5nNsRYsHs&e=>> >> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Request for comment on BGP-LS draft: draft-ietf-idr-bgpls- >inter-as-topology-ext-32 - (1 Week for comment: 5/26 to 6/1) >> >> Speaking as both WG chair and WG member: >> >> I don't have a problem with this draft as long as RFC 5392 (OSPF) and RFC >9346 (IS-IS) are used as the source of the BGP-LS inter-AS topo information. >We don't have time in LSR to rehash the IGP stub-links drafts just because IDR >is >advancing this document. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >>> On May 26, 2026, at 8:45 AM, Susan Hares >>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Greetings LSR: >>> IDR has reached consensus to publish draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology- >ext-32. >>> This draft defines a new type within the BGP-LS Network Layer Reachability >Information (NLRI) for an Inter-AS Link, as well as three new >type-length-values >(TLVs) for the BGP-LS Inter-AS Link descriptor. It allows the following two >types >of use cases: 1) IGP (ospf or isis) to BGP-LS and 2) BGP-only (import data >from >static/direct interfaces) to BGP-LS). >>> Please respond to this message if you object to the publication of the >>> draft. >Otherwise, the IDR chairs will forward this to the IESG for publication on >6/1/2026. >>> Cheerily, Sue Hares >>> Shepherd >>> IDR co-chair _______________________________________________ >>> Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
