Re: [Idr] IPR call for draft-ietf-idr-rpd-11.txt (7/23 to 8/6/2021)

Aijun Wang <> Thu, 29 July 2021 05:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 499323A102F for <>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 22:49:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.798
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vLuwBDg2RCTN for <>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 22:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0D393A102D for <>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 22:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP2IOH5QC (unknown []) by (Hmail) with ESMTPA id BF4651C00B8; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:48:55 +0800 (CST)
From: Aijun Wang <>
To: 'Huaimo Chen' <>, 'Susan Hares' <>,
References: <025001d77fe7$64d93b50$2e8bb1f0$>, <017401d78391$78d3ec10$6a7bc430$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:48:54 +0800
Message-ID: <00c301d7843d$6af9db70$40ed9250$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00C4_01D78480.79222480"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQGJLEXQH1D7DSrOUIvxKzyLBPQTjgGso5A2AfxLRRCr2Nmq0A==
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Tid: 0a7af0cf00d2d993kuwsbf4651c00b8
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] IPR call for draft-ietf-idr-rpd-11.txt (7/23 to 8/6/2021)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 05:49:11 -0000

OK, I support its publication.  

The answer to the questions from the Chairs are the followings:


Please consider in your review of this draft: 

1)      if this draft is ready for deployment

[WAJ] Yes.

2)      if the BGP extensions for routing policy distribution Help
deployments of BGP in the Internet. 

[WAJ] I think rpd can help the deployment of routing policy via BGP



Best Regards


Aijun Wang

China Telecom


From: Huaimo Chen <> 
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2021 1:03 PM
To: Aijun Wang <>; 'Susan Hares' <>;
Subject: Re: [Idr] IPR call for draft-ietf-idr-rpd-11.txt (7/23 to 8/6/2021)


Hi Aijun,


    Thank you very much for your comments. 


    My responses are inline below with [HC].


Best Regards,




From: Idr < <> > on behalf of
Aijun Wang < <> >
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 5:18 AM
To: 'Susan Hares' < <> >;
<>  < <> >
Subject: Re: [Idr] IPR call for draft-ietf-idr-rpd-11.txt (7/23 to 8/6/2021)


Hi, All:


I think there are some points should be addressed before it publication:

1)     Will the draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-05
0> [Wide Community], which is one of normative reference documents for the
draft-ietf-idr-rpd-11.txt, be forwarded later? I think the [Wide Community]
document will influence the final publication of this draft.  If [Wide
Community] will not be forwarded, would it better to define its own
container for the attached attributes sub-TLV?

[HC]: Wide Community is very powerful. It will eventually

become a RFC. In addition to this document, there are other

working group documents that use Wide Community. The authors

of the Wide Community document also work on it.

2)     Should the "RouteAttr" described in
ata=aSFPm1btQgvbCHdsGJumAMCsL6ohrM1u9ZNU%2Fa9bLg0%3D&reserved=0>  be Sub-TLV
of Target TLV, and other associated Sub-TLV be sub-sub TLV?

[HC]: We have changed "TLV/Sub-TLV" to "Sub-TLV" and rephrased the related
text accordingly.

a=jtCxWAlBaUGtAwowgUTEmLLnlCLkUAIQwshtgoD9vkk%3D&reserved=0>  describes the
"Routing Policy Type" registry, is it necessary? 

a=IDMdeBVRm4koo3Bwlo3c8N2bMxk0qcc8hPh34y5KJj8%3D&reserved=0> , it describes:

"Policy Type:  1 octet indicates the type of a policy.  1 is for Export
policy. 2 is for Import policy.  If the Policy Type is any other value, the
NLRI is corrupt and the enclosing UPDATE message MUST be ignored."  

Is this the place to use the "Routing Policy Type"? If so, it is
unreasonable to use other values as required by the IANA considerations.

[HC]: You are right. There is no other policy type except

for export and import. The "Routing Policy Type" registry 

is not needed. We have removed it.

a=0wvPK%2BNvk7V8UsowNyKqFNAton5b9aYO5dB9rl%2FnGgo%3D&reserved=0>  is named
as "Attribute Change Sub-TLV" Registry, should it be "Parameter TLV" as
indicated in

[HC]: The "Attribute Change Sub-TLV" is within the "Parameter TLV".



Best Regards


Aijun Wang

China Telecom






From: <>
< <> > On Behalf Of Susan
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2021 1:23 AM
To: <> 
Subject: [Idr] IPR call for draft-ietf-idr-rpd-11.txt (7/23 to 8/6/2021)


This begins a 2 week WG last call on draft-ietf-idr-rpd-11.txt. 


There is one missing IPR statement from Liang Ou. 

Liang should send the IPR statements in response to this WG LC.  


The implementation report is at:


The two implementations are different implementations from Huawei. 


This document describes BGP Extensions for Routing

   Policy Distribution (BGP RPD) to support this.


Please consider in your review of this draft: 

1) if this draft is ready for deployment, 

2) if the BGP extensions for routing policy distribution 

Help deployments of BGP in the Internet. 


Cheerily, Susan Hares