[Idr] Re: draft-zhang-idr-sr-policy-template-04 - Need Revision + architecture back ground
Zhangka <zhangka@huawei.com> Mon, 15 July 2024 11:04 UTC
Return-Path: <zhangka@huawei.com>
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 A217CC151520; Mon, 15 Jul 2024 04:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.904
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EqXintvqRqvb; Mon, 15 Jul 2024 04:04:27 -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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0D73C151078; Mon, 15 Jul 2024 04:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.31]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4WMznr1xd2z6JB3Z; Mon, 15 Jul 2024 19:03:12 +0800 (CST)
Received: from lhrpeml100006.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.160.224]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C10A51400E7; Mon, 15 Jul 2024 19:04:24 +0800 (CST)
Received: from kwepemg500006.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.43) by lhrpeml100006.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.224) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Mon, 15 Jul 2024 12:04:23 +0100
Received: from kwepemi500004.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.17) by kwepemg500006.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Mon, 15 Jul 2024 19:04:21 +0800
Received: from kwepemi500004.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.17]) by kwepemi500004.china.huawei.com ([7.221.188.17]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.039; Mon, 15 Jul 2024 19:04:21 +0800
From: Zhangka <zhangka@huawei.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "draft-zhang-idr-sr-policy-template@ietf.org" <draft-zhang-idr-sr-policy-template@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-zhang-idr-sr-policy-template-04 - Need Revision + architecture back ground
Thread-Index: AdrUjIA0RIvBNQN2ST2XS0Ul8nbHMwCGfRpA
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 11:04:21 +0000
Message-ID: <deb28708905447d49749532d25853e2d@huawei.com>
References: <CO1PR08MB6611C152D3465416DC532485B3A62@CO1PR08MB6611.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <CO1PR08MB6611C152D3465416DC532485B3A62@CO1PR08MB6611.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.153.199]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID-Hash: 7CRDYTYDMNYYG6W3236SVFE6REG4LNGU
X-Message-ID-Hash: 7CRDYTYDMNYYG6W3236SVFE6REG4LNGU
X-MailFrom: zhangka@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
CC: Shizhaoyin <shizhaoyin@huawei.com>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [Idr] Re: draft-zhang-idr-sr-policy-template-04 - Need Revision + architecture back ground
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/K0g8bgCJMaYlUg4k3YUEPHtr7zs>
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>
Sue, Got it, will discuss and update a new version soon. Thank you very much. Regards, Ka -----Original Message----- From: Susan Hares [mailto:shares@ndzh.com] Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2024 2:57 AM To: idr@ietf.org; draft-zhang-idr-sr-policy-template@ietf.org Subject: draft-zhang-idr-sr-policy-template-04 - Need Revision + architecture back ground Ka, Zhibo, Jie, and Qiangzhou: Please review the notes from the 5/20 interim regarding draft-zhang-idr-sr-policy-template-04.txt. Please revise your draft (-05) and ask for another review session at another IDR Meeting or IDR Interim. We'll expect that you will also discuss the architecture in the SPRING WG. Cheerily, Sue =============== Background on Review: Link to Email on 5/20/2024 Interim https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/XQkAVav3Kg23B5UsOO764_CPvOE/ Link to Notes from 5/20/204 Interim Notes from 5/20/2024 interim: 5. BGP SR Policy Extensions for template [15 minutes] draft-zhang-idr-sr-policy-template-03 [Ka Zhang) Ketan: Is the template same as the path-profile ID in PCEP? Ka: The use of template in this draft is similar to the path-profile. Ketan: Suggest to align on the terminology, such as profile-ID. And add-reference to the PCE draft. It might make the document clearer. I agree with the purpose of the draft. Ketan: Is this [the template] an attribute of the candidate path level or of the SR Policy? I think you need to explain what needs to happen at the candidate path level. Ka: I will check on this later. Alvaro: Can someone provide pointer to the PCE draft? [pointer] Template idea can be bigger than this draft. Sue called it the "template architecture" in her shepherd's review. This draft is only about the TLV for the template ID. There are a lot more details on the template and the policy. Are they a subset of a SR Policy? Or are these a part of the group of policies. Can these policies be nested or not? There is an assertionin the draft that if you do not know what the template ID is, please do nothing. This could be a problem if you wanted the Template ID to do something. Alvaro: The architecture of template needs to be discussed in SPRING. Sue: You will note that Alvaro's concerns are behind quesitnos 5, 6, and 7 in my shepherd's review. I realize you have given me definitive answers. I appreciate those answers, but you will need to discuss that architecture in Spring. Jie Dong https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-alvarez-pce-path-profiles-04 Jie Dong: The PCE draft has expired. Need to consider how to move forward both the architecture and the protocol extensions. Alvaro: [from Chat]: The draft expired a long time ago] Ketan: [From chat]: But there are implementations with vendor specific TLVs