Re: [Idr] WG adoption for draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-05.txt (10/20/2023 to 11/6/2023)

[Boris Hassanov <[e-mail]>]

 Hi Sue and all,From the customer side I support the adoption of this draft. We use our in-house SDN-controller for distribution of SR Policies via PCEP and BGP SR towards PEs. Thus having the opportunity to signal SL id and use it as identifier for per SL statistic provides more options for control and reaction on the network events. Also it will make BGP and PCEP (draft-ietf-pce-multipath ) functionality equal .   
1.       Should we merge draft-zhang-idr-sr-policy-metric-05 and drft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id?
I think - not, they are about different topics and only related in regards to modification of Tunnel Encaps Attribute.
2.       Is there value in adding a segment list identifier?
Yes, see my comments above.

3.       Is there any technical problem with the description and the procedures for handling the segment list identifier?
Only on vendors implementation side. Also if this draft will be adopted, later it should be reflected in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy too (likely in SR Segment List TLV)  
 Thank you.

SY,Boris


    On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 09:08:16 PM GMT+3, Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:  
 
  
This begins a 2-week WG Adoption poll for draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-05.txt
 
(10/20/2023 to 11/6/2023) 
 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id/
 
  
 
The authors should respond to this email with an email indicating whether they know of any IPR related to this draft.
 
  
 
This draft proposes a change to the  
 
Tunnel Encaps Attribute for the SR Policy Tunnel type 
 
in the segment list.  The change is to add 
 
a segment list identifier: 
 
  
 
         Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23)
 
            Tunnel Type: SR Policy
 
                Binding SID
 
                SRv6 Binding SID
 
                Preference
 
                Priority
 
                Policy Name
 
                Policy Candidate Path Name
 
                Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
 
                Segment List
 
                    Weight
 
                    Segment List Identifier
 
                    Segment
 
                    Segment
 
    
 
Please note that draft-zhang-idr-sr-policy-metric-05.txt
 
Proposes adding a metric value to the segment list.
 
  
 
In your comments on adoption, please consider:
 
1.      Should we merge draft-zhang-idr-sr-policy-metric-05
 
And drft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id?
 
2.      Is there value in adding a segment list identifier?
 
3.      Is there any technical problem with the description and the procedures for handling the segment list identifier?
 
  
 
Cheerily, Sue Hares  
 
  
 
  
 _______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr