IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com> Thu, 09 April 2020 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <jie.dong@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 57E033A0924 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 07:59:45 -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 fTEVk4OmxTkC for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 07:59:43 -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 969C23A0921 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 07:59:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml735-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 360A2160E7420F20CC44 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 15:59:42 +0100 (IST)
Received: from dggeme701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.97) by lhreml735-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.86) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 15:59:41 +0100
Received: from dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.100) by dggeme701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.97) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 22:59:39 +0800
Received: from dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.77]) by dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.77]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 22:59:39 +0800
From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@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: AdYGjhUttAt3lPHsTfmnpSciWcUkAAG3UV1A
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 14:59:39 +0000
Message-ID: <8d0f405452c7486890634f36c7137368@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: [10.45.208.192]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8d0f405452c7486890634f36c7137368huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/73vcGZM8XBHAUZZjojlidbipt2M>
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: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 14:59:45 -0000

Hi Sue,

Yes, I support the adoption of this document.

Please find my replies to the questions inline:

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<mailto: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?

Yes, it is a useful feature for SR policy.

2) Are there any error handling issues besides what is being
     Taken care of in RFC7752bis-03.txt

Not aware of additional issues.

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.

Yes, it is in the right direction and ready for adoption.

Best regards,
Jie


Cheers, Sue Hares

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email