[Idr] Re: Shepherd report for draft-ietfidr-sr-policy-seglist-id-02

[linchangwang <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sue,

Thank you. We will address Shepherd's comments later.
It is recommended not to make any further changes to the type definitions of Path Segment, Reserve Path Segment, Metric, and Segment List Identifier TLVs as there are already existing implementations.
Here are the responses to the three issues raised:

  1.  Are you planning any technical changes to this draft?

No.



  1.  Do you have implementations?



H3C and ZTE have already implemented it.

Currently, it is implemented by defining the TLV type as 19.

It is recommended not to change the IANA definition further.



  1.  Are you ready for WG LC?



Yes, we wish to start WG LC after we address the Shepherd's comments.

The new version will be submitted soon.

Thanks,
Changwang

发件人: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
发送时间: 2024年9月2日 0:31
收件人: [e-mail]
抄送: linchangwang (RD) <[e-mail]>; Weiqiang Cheng <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
主题: Shepherd report for draft-ietfidr-sr-policy-seglist-id-02


Changwang, Weiqiang, Yao, Ketan, Mengxiao:

Thank you for your work draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-02.txt
Below you will find a shepherd report for this version of the draft.

Just a warning, we will be discussing the preliminary allocations during
IDR interim on September 9th, 2024.

It appears that we have Segment lists (L, M, N, O) clashing with the
Path Segment, Reserve Path segment, Metric, and Segment List Identifier.
I think I should reassign Path Segment, Reserve Path segment, Metric,
and Segment List Identifier to a different TLV range (30+).

Let me know what you think about this change.
As part of the status for the September 9th, 2024 meeting,
Please let me know:


  1.  Are you planning any technical changes to this draft?
  2.  Do you have implementations?
  3.  Are you ready for WG LC?

Cheerily, Sue Hares

============
Shepherd report for draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-02
Shepherd report for draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-02

Status: WG draft
implementations: unknown
allocation status: preliminary (upcoming issue)
WG LC status: unknown

Detail shepherd report

Comment: Thank you for a carefully written document.

1. Section 2.0, last paragraph, Please provide a reference in [draft-ietf-pce-multipath]

old text:/
   When signaling SR Policy by PCEP [I-D.ietf-pce-multipath], a segment
   list is identified by "Path ID", which is a 4-octet identifier. In
   this document, the segment list identifier is also represented using
   a 4-octet ID./

 new text:/
    When signaling SR Policy by PCEP [I-D.ietf-pce-multipath] (see section 5.2),
     a segment list is identified by "Path ID", which is a 4-octet identifier. In
    this document, the segment list identifier is also represented using
    a 4-octet ID./

Issue-2: Security Section, Please enhance the security section

Security section should refer to security section in
[draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi]. It is important to reference:

a) operates in trusted environment (as draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi)
b) Operators must a Segment ID for a segment is critical piece of
information about critical infrastructure.  Care must be take
with distribution of information.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
本邮件及其附件含有新华三集团的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出
的个人或群组。禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、
或散发）本邮件中的信息。如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本
邮件！
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from New H3C, which is
intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the
information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial
disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
by phone or email immediately and delete it!