Re: [Idr] IPR Call and WG Adoption for draft-qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

[Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>]

Hi Zafar,

Thanks very much for your interest on this work, and pointing out the IFIT framework.
We could cooperate and expedite the framework.
However, when considering the adoption of draft-qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit, we do not have to wait for the framework.
1. The framework is a support document. It’s informational. draft-qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit as a self-contained building block do not have to depend on the it.
2. In an opposite way, we got some suggestions in the community, they want to see each building blocks getting mature, and then consider how they could work together.

IMO, we should deal with these documents in parallel.

Cheers,
Tianran
From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Zafar Ali (zali)
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 4:20 PM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: Zafar Ali (zali) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] IPR Call and WG Adoption for draft-qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

Dear WG,


As discussed during the WG call:

There is an overall framework draft, which is an individual document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework/

There are also many related protocol-specific iFIT individual drafts in various WGs.

It is better to have a framework draft to reach maturity (adoption) first.

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Monday, November 2, 2020 at 12:56 AM
To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [Idr] IPR Call and WG Adoption for draft-qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit-04.txt (11/2/2020 to 11/16/2020).

The draft can be accessed at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu/

The authors should provide IPR statements by 11/5/2020 so the IDR WG can consider the IPR status in their
decision.

This draft adds the IFIT sub-TLV to the BGP Tunnel Encaps attribute for the SR policy tunnel type. This sub-TLV is only valid for SR Policy tunnel types.  Within the IFIT  sub-TLV value field, 5 sub-TLVs may be included (4 for IOAM and 1 for Enhanced Alternate Marking).

The IDR co-chairs thank the authors for their patience.  The WG adoption call for this draft has been delayed by the process of switching shepherds for BGP Tunnel Encaps draft.  Many BESS and IDR drafts currently refer to the BGP tunnel encapsulation drafts.

In your review of this draft, please differentiate between the following:

  *   Support/rejection of In-situ Flow Telemetry (IFIT) as a IP routing technology,
  *   Support/rejection of alternate marking as a IP routing technology,
  *   Support/rejection of adding new sub-TLVS for SR Policy tunnel type of BGP Tunnel Encap Attribute, and
  *   Specific issues with the descriptions of these features in the draft.

Cheers, Susan Hares