[Idr] Re： Re: draft-zhou-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-06_-_Adoption_call_(1/27/2023_to_2/10/2023)_-_extended_to_3/3
Yisong Liu <liuyisong@chinamobile.com> Fri, 03 March 2023 06:59 UTC
Return-Path: <liuyisong@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 19283C14F74A for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 22:59:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.001, HDRS_MISSP=2.499, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no 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 XTd5fcg2LGiY for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 22:59:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cmccmta1.chinamobile.com (cmccmta1.chinamobile.com [221.176.66.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76E52C14F749 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 22:59:17 -0800 (PST)
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.121.1]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app03-12003 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee364019ac2824-be99a; Fri, 03 Mar 2023 14:59:15 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee364019ac2824-be99a
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from CMCC-PC (unknown[10.2.149.199]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvr01-12001 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee164019ac1c0e-58e39; Fri, 03 Mar 2023 14:59:14 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee164019ac1c0e-58e39
MIME-Version: 1.0
x-PcFlag: 4996429a-bfb2-43c4-a802-70243a7f90b5_5_123074
X-Mailer: PC_RICHMAIL 2.9.23
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2023 14:59:14 +0800
From: Yisong Liu <liuyisong@chinamobile.com>
To: shares <shares@ndzh.com>
Cc: idr <idr@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <202303031459142486001062@chinamobile.com>
Content-Type: multipart/Alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart-1808966234_=----"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/LjXnjZo-ifZ37PfYnvH08aZD5rk>
Subject: [Idr] Re： Re: draft-zhou-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-06_-_Adoption_call_(1/27/2023_to_2/10/2023)_-_extended_to_3/3
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 03 Mar 2023 06:59:27 -0000
Hi, I support the adoption of this draft. I think it is useful for SR MPLS. Best Regards Yisong Original From: SusanHares <shares@ndzh.com> To: idr@ietf.org <idr@ietf.org>; Date: 2023年03月01日 12:08 Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-zhou-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-06 - Adoption call (1/27/2023 to 2/10/2023) - extended to 3/3 _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr Greetings: The support for draft-zhou-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-06 is positive, but light. I am extending the original call to 3/3 to see if we can obtain additional support. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vVpUpFP_0QqY4tzGAoeEyLM7Brc/ The text of the initial call is included below. Cheerily, Sue =========== his adoption begins a two week WG Adoption call for draft-zhou-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-06.txt https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhou-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp/ The authors should respond to this message with Email that indicates whether they know of any IPR related to this draft. In your discussions please consider if this WG should approve an extension to Segment flags defined in the draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-20.txt . The existing flags are the following 2.4.4.2.12. Segment Flags The Segment Types sub-TLVs described above may contain the following flags in the "Flags" field defined in Section 6.8: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |V|A|S|B| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 22: Segment Flags The changes proposed by this draft are the addition Of an "E" flag to those bits. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |V|A|S|B|E| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ E-Flag: This flag, when set, indicates that presence of < ELI, EL> label pairs which are inserted after this segment. E-Flag is applicable to Segment Types A, C, D, E, F, G and H. If E-Flag appears with Segment Types B, I, J and K, it MUST be ignored. Cheerily, Sue