IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-peng-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-attr-05 (9/26/2023-10/10/2023)

Nat Kao <pyxislx@gmail.com> Thu, 12 October 2023 10:09 UTC

Return-Path: <pyxislx@gmail.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 B2F18C15108B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 03:09:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Ckn5nqc3-5xU for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 03:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22b.google.com (mail-lj1-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0723C15108C for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 03:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22b.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2c28e35752cso10317451fa.0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 03:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1697105355; x=1697710155; darn=ietf.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=VKS3Ps1JNjX8/2xZ5FM16AUrELN/NWVn4wyfi7zgsYU=; b=YxnwS9oET7K8W9Qecn4aEnzT/37nRzeBytGxHuW8NP2BhkIH4pHE4mZ5XkjZ3LmpEz RiRKPGo6VLtmslHeflKQ00/sASFyC5l1wPBOLjdZLeFoCsOfLvW9dQ2VcvA0rzkIv1p0 R30Ve4aGlAfaV0W8OGADyj9OsEuDOL9AEBGdCTVA4kXNqMHuOf5anuOWyZXafbGOxTJ3 qIAu8nGxG4Xxd8hnbCt5i9S3tZ97yj95LxfTjQiIpx+Rp/9wC52KL4cclu/HV1tUDuyg gho2gUkAg3BTdtobnk+ESrspBXT/Y2HGecR3mCUn1xwtvxLMEyh1eFHZnwEM5GEBHodK FCag==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1697105355; x=1697710155; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=VKS3Ps1JNjX8/2xZ5FM16AUrELN/NWVn4wyfi7zgsYU=; b=P6g/mmWUVuDUUgiwIucrExr4IZXO1FdMzdgj7y4zTkcxsUc2Z2x1aHIQ3YwX94Q5Ua x/JtGiN2oS9Ex2g0IhprIP3sCGAxSNhUSVsaafEMsQmhHlhMpei0RqkeuKYaCwKh1ld2 r146TPKI3+/NRmp+UhZuLOoQRR7Xn6tN1c2X0MM4X8segM9xdO6Zj1agKCW8l4cHlrdF TBZmxjrCCliLgCpCJ3eoDQK1QDpGSXXEs4IYuOHYoVIuTcuNY8VOcD2eTgf34KKzwRA6 GZnamF6sHUSSNmspEblt2GlPPGTVOwP0XqOwGN/An3RrZ2lPBld52AqGV8OQxk7P9sRE wlpQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzmKuP296UgOC8Tt0Q3d3HGUXfquUsp9LhA6/q/Lfom+gQzGn94 4jnW9RFeBDYgOGezx74aMAw5u7aLKCEF/9IR0dISVMJItSXQig==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFLhZN+KyjXdfuVA6m1MmawbuWRCmU9Db6nXdbRVoLowwjf03jJmRot6UBjhtqS682loI/QyOFhuFK69gLC3ik=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9542:0:b0:2bf:ff17:8122 with SMTP id t2-20020a2e9542000000b002bfff178122mr17421418ljh.17.1697105354450; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 03:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BYAPR08MB487268B41AB9991CDA09CAC0B3C2A@BYAPR08MB4872.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR08MB487268B41AB9991CDA09CAC0B3C2A@BYAPR08MB4872.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
From: Nat Kao <pyxislx@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 18:08:38 +0800
Message-ID: <CAKEJeo7LZMekmLAkyffTuwBu7PzUmMp3yA41nc13dvoP247=Mg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/B96xf9mYOqO_kJKNiVxN5llFmNQ>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-peng-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-attr-05 (9/26/2023-10/10/2023)
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, 12 Oct 2023 10:09:17 -0000

Hi, All.

I support the adoption for this draft.
These segment types are useful for networks to identify specific
Adj-SIDs using alternate algorithms.

The alignment suggestions:
-For all segment types defined in this document, it might be better to
change "optional Algorithm" to "optional SR Algorithm" for better
alignment with RFC9256 & draft-ietf-idr-sr-segtypes-ext.
-In Sec. 3.1, is the paragraph "Other fields have the same ..."
redundant? It seems that all fields are defined already.
-In Sec. 3.1 for "Local Interface ID": it should be better to
reference RFC7752 instead of RFC8664 in this section.
 (ref: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Nfa1-xwiwcysW-oTSRq0Z5BCWyQ/ )
-In Sec. 3.3, shouldn't the reference for "Local/Remote Interface ID"
be RFC7752 instead of RFC8402?

-I knew some terms don't align well between
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext and RFC9256(after -04 of
draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy)
However, these terms now appear in the same document, so it's better
to unify them for readability.
 *Sec. 3.1: "IPv4 Address", "IPv4 Prefix Address", and "IPv4 Node Address"
 *Sec. 3.2: "Local IPv4 Address"/"IPv4 Local Address" & "Remote IPv4
Address"/"IPv4 Remote Address"
 *Sec. 3.3/3.4: "IPv6 Prefix Address"/"IPv6 Local Node Address"/"Local
Prefix"/"Local IPv6 Address"
     & "IPv6 Remote Node Address"/"Remote Address"/"Remote IPv6 Address"

Thanks
Nat

On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 10:33 AM Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
>
> This begins a 2-week WG adoption call for
>
> draft-peng-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-attr-05
>
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-attr/)
>
>
>
> In your comments, please indicate
>
> “support” or “no support”.
>
>
>
> Please also consider the following questions:
>
>
>
> 1) Are these new segment types are useful for networks
>
> Using alternate algorithms?
>
>
>
> 2) This draft will need to align with the
>
> draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy
>
> split into  draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy
>
> and draft-ietf-idr-sr-segtypes-ext-01.
>
>
>
> Do you see any issues with this alignment?
>
>
>
> Cheerily, Sue Hares
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email