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

"Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com> Fri, 03 April 2020 08:15 UTC

Return-Path: <xiejingrong@huawei.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 CC0C03A13F6 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 01:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 AVMcOR8GMBNY for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 01:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7D683A13F4 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 01:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml739-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 124A5628797EB5016FAA for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 09:15:00 +0100 (IST)
Received: from nkgeml709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.40) by lhreml739-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.189) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 09:14:59 +0100
Received: from nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.154) by nkgeml709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 16:14:49 +0800
Received: from nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.154]) by nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.154]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 16:14:49 +0800
From: "Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, 'IDR List' <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] WG Adoption - draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03.txt - 2 Week WG adoption call (3/30 - 4/13)
Thread-Index: AdYGjhUttAt3lPHsTfmnpSciWcUkAADAHCFg
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 08:14:49 +0000
Message-ID: <362b7b36971743a8a0f47fffa2963f87@huawei.com>
References: <01a201d6068f$c1f3aaf0$45db00d0$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <01a201d6068f$c1f3aaf0$45db00d0$@ndzh.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.202.118]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_362b7b36971743a8a0f47fffa2963f87huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/4abXWt4TKZbIiIGiVrJBy6snz9Y>
Subject: Re: [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: Fri, 03 Apr 2020 08:15:04 -0000

I support the adoption.
MTU is essential for a tunnel of any kind, either a default/blind one, or a better/optimized one provided optionally.
This document defines a direct and simple extension to provide an MTU for a tunnel rather than the default one.

Thanks
Jingrong

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 8:36 PM
To: 'IDR List' <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] WG Adoption - draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03.txt - 2 Week WG adoption call (3/30 - 4/13)

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