Re: [Idr] WG Adoption - draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03.txt - 2 Week WG adoption call (3/30 - 4/13)

"chenhuan6@chinatelecom.cn" <chenhuan6@chinatelecom.cn> Tue, 31 March 2020 04:23 UTC

Return-Path: <chenhuan6@chinatelecom.cn>
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 266373A0993 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 21:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z1Gxbvp4V5s3 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 21:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chinatelecom.cn (prt-mail.chinatelecom.cn [42.123.76.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4863A3A0992 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 21:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
HMM_SOURCE_IP: 172.18.0.218:6007.770640866
HMM_ATTACHE_NUM: 0000
HMM_SOURCE_TYPE: SMTP
Received: from clientip-116.22.252.115?logid-7AB716144A1E4897B63324B30E24674C (unknown [172.18.0.218]) by chinatelecom.cn (HERMES) with SMTP id 7498228009F; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:23:34 +0800 (CST)
X-189-SAVE-TO-SEND: 44093218@chinatelecom.cn
Received: from ([172.18.0.218]) by App0025 with ESMTP id 7AB716144A1E4897B63324B30E24674C for shares@ndzh.com; Tue Mar 31 12:23:40 2020
X-Transaction-ID: 7AB716144A1E4897B63324B30E24674C
X-filter-score: filter<0>
X-Real-From: chenhuan6@chinatelecom.cn
X-Receive-IP: 172.18.0.218
X-MEDUSA-Status: 0
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:23:34 +0800
From: "chenhuan6@chinatelecom.cn" <chenhuan6@chinatelecom.cn>
To: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
References: <01a201d6068f$c1f3aaf0$45db00d0$@ndzh.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.2.15.80[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2020033112223451917676@chinatelecom.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart332671073281_=----"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/GCjnM4orGZ13M4O8ClagvQIJFvM>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption - draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03.txt - 2 Week WG adoption call (3/30 - 4/13)
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: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 04:23:56 -0000

Hi WG,
Suport the adoption.
SR Policy will popular in SP network. 
Path mtu carried in SR policy is helpful for us to deploy across different device in the network.

BR.
HUANAN CHEN

 
From: Susan Hares
Date: 2020-03-30 20:35
To: 'IDR List'
Subject: [Idr] WG Adoption - draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03.txt - 2 Week WG adoption call (3/30 - 4/13)
This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03.txt 
 
You can view this draft at: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu/
 
This draft distributes path maximum transmission unit for the 
SR policy via BGP.  
 
Any discussion regarding on whether one desires 
SR Policy should be clearly distinguished from the 
Technical discussions on the mechanisms to pass SR policy MTU. 
 
The questions for the people to discuss on this draft are: 
 
1) Is there a need for this mechanism in networks using 
        MPLS-SR or SR-V6 and SR policy? 
 
2) Are there any error handling issues besides what is being 
     Taken care of in RFC7752bis-03.txt
 
3) Do you think this draft is ready to be adopted? 
     In this category, please list any concerns you have
     regarding adoption.  This category can include 
     general concerns about BGP-LS, MPLS-SR, 
    SR-V6, and SR-Policy.   
 
Cheers, Sue Hares