Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd-05.txt (7/15 to 7/29/2020)

"Wanghaibo (Rainsword)" <rainsword.wang@huawei.com> Mon, 27 July 2020 04:00 UTC

Return-Path: <rainsword.wang@huawei.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 A75AA3A1678 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 21:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 8TeAmz0OBC2B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 21:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2ECE3A1675 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 21:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml720-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id DC37B7378D24618302AE for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 05:00:11 +0100 (IST)
Received: from nkgeml709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.40) by lhreml720-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 05:00:11 +0100
Received: from nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.154) by nkgeml709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 12:00:02 +0800
Received: from nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.154]) by nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.154]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 12:00:02 +0800
From: "Wanghaibo (Rainsword)" <rainsword.wang@huawei.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd-05.txt (7/15 to 7/29/2020)
Thread-Index: AdZaqFM+IHByNV2FRBK1MLVtR2zN/AJIKBwA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 04:00:02 +0000
Message-ID: <e7c5e9889dbe43e99406f42717ac0a56@huawei.com>
References: <003701d65aa9$689a64d0$39cf2e70$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <003701d65aa9$689a64d0$39cf2e70$@ndzh.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.202.142]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_e7c5e9889dbe43e99406f42717ac0a56huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/RncU2cijmBfrAbxB0m7c0Egg2qA>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd-05.txt (7/15 to 7/29/2020)
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: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 04:00:16 -0000

Hi All,
I support the WG LC of the drafts. My reply on the question list is as follows:
1) Do you feel this draft has an solution that is acceptable
   With the IPR as a WG RFC?
[Haibo] Yes
2) Do you feel this draft is ready to publish?
[Haibo] Yes
3) Do you know of implementations of this draft?
[Haibo] Yes.
4) Do you know of deployments of this draft?
If so, is this feature useful in the deployments.
[Haibo] Yes.
Traffic optimization, especially Internet traffic, is a widespread requirement.
In the traditional solution, use outbound route policy to achieve traffic optimization, whici is complex, error-prone, and difficult to maintain.
With the RPD solution, it's very simply to do the traffic optimization.
As I know, there are several deployments and very useful.
5) Do you feel that Wide Communities is ready for
Publication?
[Haibo] Yes.

Best Regards,
Haibo

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 9:11 PM
To: idr@ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd-05.txt (7/15 to 7/29/2020)

This begins a 2 week WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd
from 7/15 to 7/29/2020.  You can obtain this draft at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rpd/

This draft defines a new AFI/SAFI and new atoms
for the Wide Communities.  This WG LC has been delayed
as I waited for a resubmission of the Wide Communities draft.
I had hoped to do these 2 WG LC in parallel.

I've not received the Wide Communities draft, but we will
start this WGLC to provide feedback to the authors.
We may have to run a short follow-up to this WG LC
If there are changes to the Wide Communities draft during
Its WG LC.

There is an IPR statement on this draft.

In your responses please answer the following questions:

1) Do you feel this draft has an solution that is acceptable
   With the IPR as a WG RFC?

2) Do you feel this draft is ready to publish?

3) Do you know of implementations of this draft?

4) Do you know of deployments of this draft?
If so, is this feature useful in the deploy ments.

5) Do you feel that Wide Communities is ready for
Publication?

Cheerily, Susan Hares