[Idr] Re: 3 week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-nrp-03 (3/14 to4/4/2025)
Cheng Li <c.l@huawei.com> Wed, 02 April 2025 13:07 UTC
Return-Path: <c.l@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: idr@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: idr@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A9DF166E0E9 for <idr@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 06:07:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.196
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z5dwRwggdXHq for <idr@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 06:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2969166DF16 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 06:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.231]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4ZSQ5Z2CJVz6D8gq for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:02:58 +0800 (CST)
Received: from lhrpeml500010.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.174.240]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1958714089E for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:06:37 +0800 (CST)
Received: from kwepemf200005.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.231) by lhrpeml500010.china.huawei.com (7.191.174.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1748.10; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:06:35 +0100
Received: from frapeml500003.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.28) by kwepemf200005.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.231) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:06:32 +0800
Received: from frapeml500003.china.huawei.com ([7.182.85.28]) by frapeml500003.china.huawei.com ([7.182.85.28]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.039; Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:06:30 +0200
From: Cheng Li <c.l@huawei.com>
To: Liyan Gong <gongliyan@chinamobile.com>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] Re: 3 week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-nrp-03 (3/14 to4/4/2025)
Thread-Index: AQHbo8JuuZ/d9f57f0e+xCPpO3B/gbOQVR3w
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2025 13:06:30 +0000
Message-ID: <0e55ed90a92e4067ad0a7ba052698e97@huawei.com>
References: <2b0467ed1e86934-00017.Richmail.00000022159950709027@chinamobile.com>
In-Reply-To: <2b0467ed1e86934-00017.Richmail.00000022159950709027@chinamobile.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.203.70.229]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0e55ed90a92e4067ad0a7ba052698e97huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID-Hash: YLRYJI2XP5LMN6TA4SBDDRCA3ISICSAF
X-Message-ID-Hash: YLRYJI2XP5LMN6TA4SBDDRCA3ISICSAF
X-MailFrom: c.l@huawei.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-idr.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Idr] Re: 3 week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-nrp-03 (3/14 to4/4/2025)
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Eg0SoGUaWgh9Ex21dW1nj9gEAC8>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:idr-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:idr-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:idr-leave@ietf.org>
Hi IDR, I reviewed the document and find it is quite easy to understand. NRP is not a new topic, but a topic has been discussing near a decade, and most of the work has been done in TEAS. Checking the normative reference, everything is fine. Therefore, we should move forward for sure. Thanks, Cheng . From: Liyan Gong <gongliyan@chinamobile.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 1:26 PM To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>; idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] Re: 3 week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-nrp-03 (3/14 to4/4/2025) Hi Sue and WG, I support the the publicatio of this draft. It provides a critical mechanism for integrating SR Policy with NRP Selector ID,which is essential for network slicing deployment. The proposed Sub-TLV for NRP Selector ID simplifies operational workflows while maintaining backward compatibility with existing SR architectures. Best Regards, Liyan From: Susan Hares [mailto:shares@ndzh.com] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2025 12:50 AM To: idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org> Cc: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com<mailto:jie.dong@huawei.com>> Subject: 3 week WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-nrp-03 (3/14 to 4/4/2025) This begins a 3 week WG LC (3/14/2025 to 4/4/2025) for draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-nrp-03 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-nrp/ During your comments on this draft please consider the following questions: 1. Does specification of the a Sub-TLV for NRP Selector ID in the SR Policy Tunnel TLV of the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation attribute (TEA) help the distribution of SR Policy Candidate Paths? 1. Does this sub-TLV also help SR routing deployment of NRP-IDs in the new IPv6 Hop-by-Hop optional field (See [I-D.ietf-6man-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id]? 1. Is this specification contain the necessary information Sub-TLVs in the TEA for the SR Policy TLV: (see https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/TEA-templates) for a list of required sources)? 1. Does the scalability section answer any questions on scaling? 1. Is this specification ready for publication? Cheerily, Sue (Shepherd)