[Idr] 答复: commentsondraft-qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit-03

qinfengwei <qinfengwei@chinamobile.com> Mon, 21 September 2020 09:20 UTC

Return-Path: <qinfengwei@chinamobile.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C19C3A0B22; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 02:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VSOLngXTDvcC; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 02:20:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmccmta3.chinamobile.com (cmccmta3.chinamobile.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D457F3A07EC; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 02:20:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app12-12012 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2eec5f6870488f2-5b1f6; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 17:20:09 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2eec5f6870488f2-5b1f6
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from cmccPC (unknown[]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvr10-12010 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2eea5f6870465bc-d60fa; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 17:20:08 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2eea5f6870465bc-d60fa
From: "qinfengwei" <qinfengwei@chinamobile.com>
To: <chenhuan6@chinatelecom.cn>, <draft-qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit@ietf.org>
Cc: <idr@ietf.org>
References: <2020092108143183130215@chinatelecom.cn>
In-Reply-To: <2020092108143183130215@chinatelecom.cn>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 17:20:08 +0800
Message-ID: <010d01d68ff8$66e085a0$34a190e0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_010E_01D6903B.7503C5A0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdaPrG2aHP6VKKGqT4e8Ts7bbODD6QAS8fzQ
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/GBYfPz8TyZJokGz-UHOkd5l15ew>
Subject: [Idr] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIGNvbW1lbnRzb25kcmFmdC1xaW4taWRyLXNy?= =?gb2312?b?LXBvbGljeS1pZml0LTAz?=
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 09:20:24 -0000

Hi Huanan,

         Thanks for your comments. Please check my reply inline [Fengwei].






Fengwei Qin


发件人: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 chenhuan6@chinatelecom.cn
发送时间: 2020年9月21日 08:16
收件人: draft-qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit@ietf.org
抄送: idr@ietf.org
主题: [Idr] commentsondraft-qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit-03


Hi authors,
This is an interesting topic and useful draft. After reading, I have the
following comments.
In section 3, it defines IFIT Attributes as sub-TLVs. And section 4 defines
each sub-TLVs for different IFIT tools.
One question is that could multiple IFIT attributes be encoded in SR Policy

[Fengwei]: This draft extends the sub-TLVs for encoding the information
about the SR Policy (as defined in draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy)
to introduce IFIT attributes. Yes, an IFIT node may be capable of more than
one IFIT option types.  In this case, one or more option sub-TLVs can be
distributed along with SR policy candidate paths through BGP.


If so, it would be better to describe some procedures for handling these
multiple sub-TLVs.
 [Fengwei]: We will add this.

Page 3: second line, "a per- packet" should be "a per-packet".

[Fengwei]: We will revise this.




Data Communication Research Department

Research Institute of China Telecom Co.,Ltd.