IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] draft-zhou-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-06 - Adoption call (1/27/2023 to 2/10/2023) - extended to 3/3

xiong.quan@zte.com.cn Thu, 02 March 2023 07:11 UTC

Return-Path: <xiong.quan@zte.com.cn>
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 5881EC14CE55 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2023 23:11:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.894
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RfafXXLMGpFh for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2023 23:11:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D41E1C14E513 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2023 23:10:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4PS2Ls5mxbz6FK2Y; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 15:10:45 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njb2app05.zte.com.cn ([10.55.22.121]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 3227Aa6t081976; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 15:10:37 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from xiong.quan@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njy2app08[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 15:10:38 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2023 15:10:38 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2b0064004bee44b7fcf0
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202303021510389378372@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
To: shares@ndzh.com
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 3227Aa6t081976
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-FangMail-Miltered: at cgslv5.04-192.168.250.138.novalocal with ID 64004BF5.000 by FangMail milter!
X-FangMail-Envelope: 1677741045/4PS2Ls5mxbz6FK2Y/64004BF5.000/10.5.228.133/[10.5.228.133]/mse-fl2.zte.com.cn/<xiong.quan@zte.com.cn>
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 64004BF5.000/4PS2Ls5mxbz6FK2Y
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/545sKl1VdAOG-_zdDqVRG_hhpyU>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-zhou-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-06 - Adoption call (1/27/2023 to 2/10/2023) - extended to 3/3
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 02 Mar 2023 07:11:09 -0000

Dear Sue,

I support the adoption of this document.

As Ketan mentioned,  there is an equivalent draft [1] for PCEP extension which has been also proposed and fully discussed in PCE WG. 
The extensions for BGP and PCEP would be useful and reasonable for SR Policy to configure the entropy labels.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position/


Thanks,
Quan



Re: [Idr] draft-zhou-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-06 - Adoption call (1/27/2023 to 2/10/2023) - extended to 3/3
Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Wed, 01 March 2023 04:08 UTCShow header
Greetings: The support for draft-zhou-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-06 is positive, but light. I am extending the original call to 3/3 to see if we can obtain additional support.https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vVpUpFP_0QqY4tzGAoeEyLM7Brc/The text of the initial call is included below. Cheerily, Sue =========== his adoption begins a two week WG Adoption call for draft-zhou-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-06.txthttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhou-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp/The authors should respond to this message with Email that indicates whether they know of any IPR related to this draft. In your discussions please consider if this WG should approve an  extension to Segment flags defined in the draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-20.txt . The existing flags are the following 2.4.4.2.12.  Segment Flags   The Segment Types sub-TLVs described above may contain the following   flags in the "Flags" field defined in Section 6.8:    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |V|A|S|B|       |   +-+-+-+-
 +-+-+-+-+   Figure 22: Segment Flags The changes proposed by this draft are the addition Of an "E" flag to those bits.    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |V|A|S|B|E|     |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ E-Flag: This flag, when set, indicates that presence of < ELI, EL> label pairs which are inserted after this segment.  E-Flag is applicable to Segment Types A, C, D, E, F, G and H.  If E-Flag appears with Segment Types B, I, J and K, it MUST be ignored. Cheerily, Sue

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email