Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-peng-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-attr-05 (9/26/2023-10/10/2023)
Nat Kao <pyxislx@gmail.com> Fri, 13 October 2023 10:19 UTC
Return-Path: <pyxislx@gmail.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 5634DC137380 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Oct 2023 03:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=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
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 kFVIEA_4H262 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Oct 2023 03:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x236.google.com (mail-lj1-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::236]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E19F0C137365 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Oct 2023 03:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x236.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2c17de836fbso24811541fa.1 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Oct 2023 03:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1697192340; x=1697797140; darn=ietf.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=ib2UZGsaRAZ8MePnIIiTrgtf2NieYZERphOW6RuKOL0=; b=F9QyTLUXQyqn7S5zsawcBiBBpOKjRWIbsXUFD2cJpyIJUpTPFdUvp1jR67k1oVn90m 1dDrbZnBiP1C29LrPS/vXSUFPAPKPUWcW/2GhsS4afyQIGHv8fbiH1wpIT0cA1cwJsPw ojyvnvM8yV1pRNnLO2p7n4gDSluEzrfWqHRDXAUpMQiLSHscpdWKloFHI9HeWp8NwbqJ 9TvRkKwwiErA5RBG0AOClXREFt9TfqIUZgrFe/b1gd35isYLFvBfiZ3CDrXBgmzjvF1T lndyJzoFOK/HFT4p48LQaqbj0Tjioy8DSNhdxsllnDCJnk2zpDkPnwUG9u0NglIsL3j9 Yq8Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1697192340; x=1697797140; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ib2UZGsaRAZ8MePnIIiTrgtf2NieYZERphOW6RuKOL0=; b=CaonHEGY5cG54TC+0upPZjpOW44QV5/03+qj9F+cZgKk1GGCbb361T9+4uvZxlg7pY d1dKLLRt4wSVvn8kmccS2sMD+HcdAmovX9nYiE3SUuFrrXR1rh4kdCol0TsNQiMQ8wgA UsirZJ7t21goLfdiK72hGfAw36Im7xFf5Fh0yPy6u9J8MAityeLCTximCpKOlhqlvd8/ kJKAMFQjFoVSwTh5t3KqyT2qMDOYc+yraqlOpyg9ICXrT+rmIRl21DFM6agfl6QM2f4p ObyMbbn2YhrbazTKwlE3Yd5cO+KuKh/sDTed2ULwed5G9Ozyw50z9+z6VG1WtUeuiPdI 7w7Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxArwFk5yIgD3P0++uU3BpxZXWMoz/LszBgDVmG7QMYXBcX6l22 U8iddbxRqguopAIYZ4jRvH8aSbmzPpjqbU451/M=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFTXex9usaMmx2VE7Wkwzaz29Q479iGR5zKjhJbYNFGVG6HVOr7S1fzQAI3mY6YXjMb8xb4tmKupIvyOd/x0BM=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:98da:0:b0:2bf:f68a:b129 with SMTP id s26-20020a2e98da000000b002bff68ab129mr21867818ljj.36.1697192339478; Fri, 13 Oct 2023 03:18:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKEJeo7LZMekmLAkyffTuwBu7PzUmMp3yA41nc13dvoP247=Mg@mail.gmail.com> <202310131038318048881@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <202310131038318048881@zte.com.cn>
From: Nat Kao <pyxislx@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2023 18:18:23 +0800
Message-ID: <CAKEJeo7HDWu=nFH8QC1pYR8c7WPPV9pFDYVnzS9sgU9Lq3om+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: liu.yao71@zte.com.cn
Cc: shares@ndzh.com, idr@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ROctBgIzXacKTgDha07anCNeBbc>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-peng-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-attr-05 (9/26/2023-10/10/2023)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 13 Oct 2023 10:19:11 -0000
Hi, Yao. Thank you for the prompt update. I am okay with the current version of this draft. Note: There is a reference to RFC5307 in paragraph 1 of section 3.1. Since this draft defines new BGP attributes, it might be more appropriate to refer to RFC7752(BGP-LS) instead of RFC5307(IS-IS). However, we can address this later since it's pretty minor. Thanks Nat On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 10:38 AM <liu.yao71@zte.com.cn> wrote: > > Hi Nat, > > > Thanks a lot for your support and retailed review! > > Please see my reply with [Yao]. And based on your comments, we've submmitted a new version to refine the wording for better alignment and readability. > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-peng-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-attr-07.html > > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-peng-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-attr-07 > > > Thanks, > > Yao > > > Original > From: NatKao <pyxislx@gmail.com> > To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>; > Cc: idr@ietf.org <idr@ietf.org>; > Date: 2023年10月12日 18:09 > Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-peng-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-attr-05 (9/26/2023-10/10/2023) > Hi, All. > > I support the adoption for this draft. > These segment types are useful for networks to identify specific > Adj-SIDs using alternate algorithms. > > The alignment suggestions: > -For all segment types defined in this document, it might be better to > change "optional Algorithm" to "optional SR Algorithm" for better > > alignment with RFC9256 & draft-ietf-idr-sr-segtypes-ext. > > [Yao] Yes, "optional SR Algorithm" is better. > > > -In Sec. 3.1, is the paragraph "Other fields have the same ..." > > redundant? It seems that all fields are defined already. > > [Yao] It has been deleted in the refined version. > > > -In Sec. 3.1 for "Local Interface ID": it should be better to > reference RFC7752 instead of RFC8664 in this section. > (ref: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Nfa1-xwiwcysW-oTSRq0Z5BCWyQ/ ) > -In Sec. 3.3, shouldn't the reference for "Local/Remote Interface ID" > be RFC7752 instead of RFC8402? > > [Yao] Both references have been changed, thanks. > > > -I knew some terms don't align well between > > draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext and RFC9256(after -04 of > draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy) > However, these terms now appear in the same document, so it's better > to unify them for readability. > *Sec. 3.1: "IPv4 Address", "IPv4 Prefix Address", and "IPv4 Node Address" > *Sec. 3.2: "Local IPv4 Address"/"IPv4 Local Address" & "Remote IPv4 > Address"/"IPv4 Remote Address" > *Sec. 3.3/3.4: "IPv6 Prefix Address"/"IPv6 Local Node Address"/"Local > Prefix"/"Local IPv6 Address" > & "IPv6 Remote Node Address"/"Remote Address"/"Remote IPv6 Address" > > > [Yao] > > *Sec. 3.1: The term "IPv4 Node Address" is used in the new version. > > *Sec. 3.2: "Local IPv4 Address" and "Remote IPv4 Address" are preferred > > *Sec. 3.3: "IPv6 Node Address" and "IPv6 Local/Remote Node Address" are used. > > *Sec. 3.4: "IPv6 Addresses"/"Local IPv6 Address"/"Remote IPv6 Address" are preferred. > > > Thanks > Nat > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 10:33 AM Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote: > > > > This begins a 2-week WG adoption call for > > > > draft-peng-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-attr-05 > > > > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-attr/) > > > > > > > > In your comments, please indicate > > > > “support” or “no support”. > > > > > > > > Please also consider the following questions: > > > > > > > > 1) Are these new segment types are useful for networks > > > > Using alternate algorithms? > > > > > > > > 2) This draft will need to align with the > > > > draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy > > > > split into draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy > > > > and draft-ietf-idr-sr-segtypes-ext-01. > > > > > > > > Do you see any issues with this alignment? > > > > > > > > Cheerily, Sue Hares > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Idr mailing list > > Idr@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > >
- [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-peng-idr-segment… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-peng-idr-seg… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-peng-idr-seg… chen.ran
- Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-peng-idr-seg… li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com
- Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-peng-idr-seg… linchangwang
- Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call fordraft-peng-idr-segm… 易昕昕(联通集团本部)
- Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-peng-idr-seg… Nat Kao
- Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-peng-idr-seg… liu.yao71
- Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-peng-idr-seg… Nat Kao
- Re: [Idr] WG Adoption call for draft-peng-idr-seg… liu.yao71