Re: [Idr] IPR call for draft-ietf-idr-rpd-11.txt (7/23 to 8/6/2021)

Aijun Wang <> Wed, 28 July 2021 09:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 735DB3A24AA for <>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 02:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J_ygaw0R21Na for <>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 02:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6F2B3A24A8 for <>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 02:18:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP2IOH5QC (unknown []) by (Hmail) with ESMTPA id 5088B1C00F1; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:18:05 +0800 (CST)
From: Aijun Wang <>
To: 'Susan Hares' <>,
References: <025001d77fe7$64d93b50$2e8bb1f0$>
In-Reply-To: <025001d77fe7$64d93b50$2e8bb1f0$>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:18:04 +0800
Message-ID: <017401d78391$78d3ec10$6a7bc430$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0175_01D783D4.86F83D80"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQGJLEXQH1D7DSrOUIvxKzyLBPQTjqv0vW7Q
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Tid: 0a7aec682257d993kuws5088b1c00f1
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] IPR call for draft-ietf-idr-rpd-11.txt (7/23 to 8/6/2021)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 09:18:20 -0000

Hi, All:


I think there are some points should be addressed before it publication:

1)     Will the draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-05
5#page-12> [Wide Community], which is one of normative reference documents
for the draft-ietf-idr-rpd-11.txt, be forwarded later? I think the [Wide
Community] document will influence the final publication of this draft.  If
[Wide Community] will not be forwarded, would it better to define its own
container for the attached attributes sub-TLV?

2)     Should the "RouteAttr" described in be
Sub-TLV of Target TLV, and other associated Sub-TLV be sub-sub TLV?

describes the "Routing Policy Type" registry, is it necessary? 

In, it

"Policy Type:  1 octet indicates the type of a policy.  1 is for Export
policy. 2 is for Import policy.  If the Policy Type is any other value, the
NLRI is corrupt and the enclosing UPDATE message MUST be ignored."  

Is this the place to use the "Routing Policy Type"? If so, it is
unreasonable to use other values as required by the IANA considerations.

is named as "Attribute Change Sub-TLV" Registry, should it be "Parameter
TLV" as indicated in



Best Regards


Aijun Wang

China Telecom






From: <> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2021 1:23 AM
Subject: [Idr] IPR call for draft-ietf-idr-rpd-11.txt (7/23 to 8/6/2021)


This begins a 2 week WG last call on draft-ietf-idr-rpd-11.txt. 


There is one missing IPR statement from Liang Ou. 

Liang should send the IPR statements in response to this WG LC.  


The implementation report is at:


The two implementations are different implementations from Huawei. 


This document describes BGP Extensions for Routing

   Policy Distribution (BGP RPD) to support this.


Please consider in your review of this draft: 

1) if this draft is ready for deployment, 

2) if the BGP extensions for routing policy distribution 

Help deployments of BGP in the Internet. 


Cheerily, Susan Hares