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

qinfengwei <qinfengwei@chinamobile.com> Tue, 03 November 2020 02:03 UTC

Return-Path: <qinfengwei@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 0F7183A1337 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 18:03:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 Ee-wACd7MGFk for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 18:03:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cmccmta1.chinamobile.com (cmccmta1.chinamobile.com [221.176.66.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C5E73A1345 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 18:03:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.121.17]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app02-12002 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee25fa0ba5210d-7bb32; Tue, 03 Nov 2020 10:02:59 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee25fa0ba5210d-7bb32
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from cmccPC (unknown[223.69.29.226]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvr09-12009 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee95fa0ba31560-972a7; Tue, 03 Nov 2020 10:02:59 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee95fa0ba31560-972a7
From: "qinfengwei" <qinfengwei@chinamobile.com>
To: "'Susan Hares'" <shares@ndzh.com>, <idr@ietf.org>
References: <055301d6b0dc$f84da4a0$e8e8ede0$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <055301d6b0dc$f84da4a0$e8e8ede0$@ndzh.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 10:02:25 +0800
Message-ID: <01ac01d6b185$60f34250$22d9c6f0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01AD_01D6B1C8.6F168250"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Adaw2PtgBctpKEXkRb++HOEf6MFzKAArCiQw
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Pa0W1qizzDpT0BHmwEIaLwocTLE>
Subject: [Idr] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIElQUiBDYWxsIGFuZCBXRyBBZG9wdGlvbiBm?= =?gb2312?b?b3IgZHJhZnQtcWluLWlkci1zci1wb2xpY3ktaWZpdC0wNC50eHQgKDExLzEv?= =?gb2312?b?MjAyMCB0byAxMS8xNi8yMDIwKQ==?=
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 02:03:13 -0000

Hi,

         I’m not aware of any IPRs related to this draft and support this
adoption as a co-editor.

 

 

 

Thanks,

Fengwei Qin

 

发件人: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Susan Hares
发送时间: 2020年11月2日 13:57
收件人: idr@ietf.org
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