IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Idr] WG Adoption - draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03.txt - 2 Week WG adoption call (3/30 - 4/13)

Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Mon, 30 March 2020 12:36 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A01C03A1524 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 05:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.729
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.729 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=1.449, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MRWIToyrvQKE for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 05:35:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-100-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E1843A151F for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 05:35:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=166.170.25.188;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: 'IDR List' <idr@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:35:55 -0400
Message-ID: <01a201d6068f$c1f3aaf0$45db00d0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01A3_01D6066E.3AE6ECF0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdYGjhUttAt3lPHsTfmnpSciWcUkAA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 200329-0, 03/29/2020), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/-ab966Iwu-4QgvbXS0oWNXtbzks>
Subject: [Idr] WG Adoption - draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03.txt - 2 Week WG adoption call (3/30 - 4/13)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 12:36:01 -0000

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for
draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03.txt 

 

You can view this draft at: 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu/

 

This draft distributes path maximum transmission unit for the 

SR policy via BGP.  

 

Any discussion regarding on whether one desires 

SR Policy should be clearly distinguished from the 

Technical discussions on the mechanisms to pass SR policy MTU. 

 

The questions for the people to discuss on this draft are: 

 

1) Is there a need for this mechanism in networks using 

        MPLS-SR or SR-V6 and SR policy? 

 

2) Are there any error handling issues besides what is being 

     Taken care of in RFC7752bis-03.txt

 

3) Do you think this draft is ready to be adopted? 

     In this category, please list any concerns you have

     regarding adoption.  This category can include 

     general concerns about BGP-LS, MPLS-SR, 

    SR-V6, and SR-Policy.   

 

Cheers, Sue Hares

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email