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

Peng Liu <liupengyjy@chinamobile.com> Tue, 03 November 2020 03:38 UTC

Return-Path: <liupengyjy@chinamobile.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 3CFCA3A13E3 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 19:38:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.329
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.329 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, INVALID_MSGID=0.568, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 hXhnQN8F0ycg for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 19:38:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cmccmta1.chinamobile.com (cmccmta1.chinamobile.com [221.176.66.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAB843A13E2 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 19:38:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.121.3]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app03-12003 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee35fa0d0a72d3-7e6e0; Tue, 03 Nov 2020 11:38:17 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee35fa0d0a72d3-7e6e0
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from PENG (unknown[10.2.50.90]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvr02-12002 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee25fa0d0a5856-e5f2d; Tue, 03 Nov 2020 11:38:17 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee25fa0d0a5856-e5f2d
MIME-Version: 1.0
x-PcFlag: b13a8209-fc94-4b0c-8831-51a4c71a07e0_5_41605
X-Mailer: PC_RICHMAIL 2.8.2
Date: 03 Nov 2020 11:38:15 +0800
From: =?utf-8?B?UGVuZyBMaXU=?=<liupengyjy@chinamobile.com>
To: idr<idr@ietf.org>
Cc: =?utf-8?B?U3VzYW4gSGFyZXM=?=<shares@ndzh.com>
Message-ID: 2020110311381558122863@chinamobile.com>
Content-Type: multipart/Alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart58122863_=----"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Kn9-p6KycPK81zir01Ewd0Kav7E>
Subject: Re: [Idr] IPR Call and WG Adoption for draft-qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)
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, 03 Nov 2020 03:38:46 -0000


Yes,support.




Regards,

Peng








Peng Liu | 刘鹏

China Mobile | 移动研究院

mobile phone:13810146105

email:  liupengyjy@chinamobile.com

 



发件人: Susan Hares

时间: 2020/11/02(星期一)13:57

收件人: idr;

主题: [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