[Idr] Re: draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-09 - WG adoption call(7/22/2024 to 8/9/2024)
Liyan Gong <gongliyan@chinamobile.com> Wed, 24 July 2024 02:11 UTC
Return-Path: <gongliyan@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 E2CF1C18DB98 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2024 19:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 pkoFd9mwVpsB for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2024 19:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmccmta3.chinamobile.com (cmccmta6.chinamobile.com [111.22.67.139]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73132C1840F4 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2024 19:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[10.188.0.87]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app09-12009 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee966a062bb82e-9a82e; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 10:11:07 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee966a062bb82e-9a82e
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from gongliyan@chinamobile.com ( [10.1.6.52] ) by ajax-webmail-syy-spmd02-11012 (Richmail) with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 10:11:07 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 10:11:07 +0800
From: Liyan Gong <gongliyan@chinamobile.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <2b0466a05965aa1-0007b.Richmail.00006052759930601077@chinamobile.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_631511_85345876.1721787067340"
X-Priority: 3
X-RM-TRANSID: 2b0466a05965aa1-0007b
Encrypt-Channel: web
X-RM-OA-ENC-TYPE: 0
X-RM-FontColor: 0
X-CLIENT-INFO: X-TIMING=0&X-MASSSENT=0&X-SENSITIVE=0
X-Mailer: Richmail_Webapp(V2.5.01)
Message-ID-Hash: L56OB2BW45P5AKWEMF5BNFLHKJBMCIGP
X-Message-ID-Hash: L56OB2BW45P5AKWEMF5BNFLHKJBMCIGP
X-MailFrom: gongliyan@chinamobile.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
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [Idr] Re: draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-09 - WG adoption call(7/22/2024 to 8/9/2024)
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/NSC_DBqCzFBe_vFcJ5pjutXlP_U>
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>
Hi Susan and WG, As a co-author I am not aware of any IPR associated with this draft and I support this adoption. Please see my replies to relevant questions. Thank you. Is the addition of NRP-ID information to SR BGP-LS information valuable to networks?----Yes, this addition is necessary and useful. Does the draft clearly specify the TLV?----Yes, the defination in chapter 2 is clear. Are there any security concerns about reporting NRP-ID?---No, it has been explained in chapter 6. Is this document ready to adopt?-----Yes, all the concerns have been addressed in the latest version. Best Regards, Liyan ----邮件原文----发件人：Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>收件人："idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>抄 送: (无)发送时间：2024-07-23 09:41:31主题：[Idr] draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-09 - WG adoption call (7/22/2024 to 8/9/2024) This begins a 2+ week WG adoption call (7/22 to 8/9/2024)for draft-chen-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-09.txt. (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp/) The authors should respond to this WG adoption call with an email with the IPR statement. Document focus: This document defines a new TLV in BGP-LS to report the NRP-ID associated with an SR Candidate Policy Path (CP). Links to Spring: During the 5/20/2024 interim, the following question was raised: What is the relationship between the information in this draft and the information in draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments? Ran answered the following: Due to the resource SID mechanism defined in the draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments/) the headend node does not have information about the relationship between Candidate Path (CP) and NRP IDs, so it currently does not consider reporting the relationship between CP and NRP ID. The current draft is only for the scenario where data packets carry NRP ID. The NRP ID is used with the normal SR SID as the resource used will be indicated by the NRP-ID. An SR Policy candidate path(CP) may be instantiated with a specific NRP on the headend node via a local configuration, PCEP, or BGP SR Policy signaling. Then the state and attributes of the NRP associated with the candidate path of SR policy can be distributed to the controller. In your discussion, please consider: Is the addition of NRP-ID information to SR BGP-LS information valuable to networks? Does the draft clearly specify the TLV? Are there any security concerns about reporting NRP-ID? Is this document ready to adopt? Cheerily, Sue