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

[John Scudder <[e-mail]>]

I had not intended to cc IDR on this, but never mind, a little transparency is not a bad thing (sleep deprivation is, though).

Since I *did* cc IDR, I may as well take the opportunity to comment that if I’ve misrepresented or omitted your position, please follow up.

Thanks,

—John

On Nov 19, 2020, at 1:53 AM, John Scudder <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi Sue,

Here’s my tally on this one:

Yes (but co-authors):
- Giuseppe F
- Yali
- Fengwei
- Tianran

Yes:
- Peng Liu
- Yisong
- Huzhibo
- Chen Huan
- Shuanglong
- Fabio B
- Massimo
- Jie
- Mauro C
- Weiqiang
- Ran Pang
- Huaimo
- Mach
- Dhruv
- Chengli

No:
- Ketan — interaction with SR policy module isn’t clear, "might seem like an uncoordinated protocol development effort”. (Not explicitly ’no’ but I read it that way for now.)
- Zafar — "It is better to have a framework draft to reach maturity (adoption) first.”

Comments/questions:
- Joel H — frame behavior not adopted by relevant WGs, therefore premature to adopt?

Some of the concerns raised are potentially serious. I think we can call Zafar “in the rough”. I’m not sure if Ketan and Giuseppe fully converged during the WG meeting — do you have a sense of this? And I think Joel cleared his concern later. So Ketan’s is the only concern I think is still outstanding, but I’d like to be clearer on it before proceeding.

—John

On Nov 2, 2020, at 12:56 AM, Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


[External Email. Be cautious of content]


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/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!S2_evVk0qH-qYiwpJrdQMKbVgbTIQlCdbDTqTHwgxWJUCrM2yIeftGvCmylR-A$>

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



_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!S2_evVk0qH-qYiwpJrdQMKbVgbTIQlCdbDTqTHwgxWJUCrM2yIeftGv96xWXpg$