IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn Fri, 03 April 2020 09:18 UTC

Return-Path: <zhuyq8@chinatelecom.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 8B4FF3A1571 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 02:18:53 -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 j2s5_06HrDyH for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 02:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chinatelecom.cn (prt-mail.chinatelecom.cn [42.123.76.227]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8B663A156F for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 02:18:49 -0700 (PDT)
HMM_SOURCE_IP: 172.18.0.218:62011.1939381549
HMM_ATTACHE_NUM: 0000
HMM_SOURCE_TYPE: SMTP
Received: from clientip-113.66.219.135?logid-9EF0481657244255AE279BAD8707779C (unknown [172.18.0.218]) by chinatelecom.cn (HERMES) with SMTP id B66842800B8; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 17:18:38 +0800 (CST)
X-189-SAVE-TO-SEND: 44031110@chinatelecom.cn
Received: from ([172.18.0.218]) by App0025 with ESMTP id 9EF0481657244255AE279BAD8707779C for idr@ietf.org; Fri Apr 3 17:18:41 2020
X-Transaction-ID: 9EF0481657244255AE279BAD8707779C
X-filter-score: filter<0>
X-Real-From: zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn
X-Receive-IP: 172.18.0.218
X-MEDUSA-Status: 0
From: zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn
To: 'Susan Hares' <shares@ndzh.com>, 'IDR List' <idr@ietf.org>
References: <01a201d6068f$c1f3aaf0$45db00d0$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <01a201d6068f$c1f3aaf0$45db00d0$@ndzh.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2020 17:18:36 +0800
Message-ID: <074601d60998$dd333d10$9799b730$@chinatelecom.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0747_01D609DB.EB578E80"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQHKANuaROx/Y2dwP02j+uh9JPrdx6h/LzLA
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/593mMnf5c3Y5bfPF_RHmIiUSrg4>
Subject: [Idr] 回复: 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 09:18:54 -0000

I  support the adoption. Thanks.

B.R.

Zhu Yongqing

 

发件人: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> 代表 Susan Hares
发送时间: 2020年3月30日 20:36
收件人: 'IDR List' <idr@ietf.org>
主题: [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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email