Re: [Idr] Adoption: draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03.txt and draft-li-sr-policy-path-segment-01.txt [9/17 to 10/1/2019]

"" <> Wed, 25 September 2019 08:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 068C912011B for <>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 01:56:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.889
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kLNNpNVmDlAd for <>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 01:56:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACC50120129 for <>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 01:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clientip- (unknown []) by (HERMES) with SMTP id 563D3280095 for <>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 16:56:04 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ([]) by App0024 with ESMTP id 186E698D1D274183ABE341C3349C5DBD for; Wed Sep 25 16:56:05 2019
X-Transaction-ID: 186E698D1D274183ABE341C3349C5DBD
X-filter-score: filter<0>
X-MEDUSA-Status: 0
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 16:56:02 +0800
From: "" <>
To: "" <>
References: <016601d56d75$e3756320$aa602960$>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart255366856621_=----"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption: draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03.txt and draft-li-sr-policy-path-segment-01.txt [9/17 to 10/1/2019]
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, 25 Sep 2019 08:56:16 -0000

Support the WG adoption of the two drafts as the co-author.
Path Segment provides the identification of the SR path. It will be useful for SR deployment.
And then, operator can do the SR performance measurement and SR OAM.
BGP-LS is popular for the router. It's welcome to use BGP extensions for the Path Segment, and then the deployment is easy.
Best regards.

Data Communication Research Department
Guangdong Research Institute of China Telecom Co.,Ltd.
From: Susan Hares
Date: 2019-09-18 00:35
To: 'idr wg'
Subject: [Idr] Adoption: draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03.txt and draft-li-sr-policy-path-segment-01.txt [9/17 to 10/1/2019]
This begins a 2 week WG Adoption call two related drafts [9/17 to 10/1/2019] 
·         draft-li-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03.txt and 
·         draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-01.txt. 
You can access these two drafts at the following location:
The authors have pointed out that the adoption of this 
draft since the following  SR-MPLS Path Segment draft has been adopted:
Please consider the following questions in your responses? 
1)      Should this SR Policy technology be included in BGP for SR-MPLS 
Spring has adopted the draft, but IDR can provide feedback 
to spring about putting this technology in BGP.
2)      Is this technology a good way to implement the required 
Features in BGP? 
3)      Is this technology ready for adoption? 
4)      Do you have any concerns about adopting this technology? 
Cheers, Susan Hares