Re: [Idr] Working Group Adoption call and IPR Call for draft-xie-idr-mpbgp-extension-4map6-05 (9/26 - 10/10/2023)

Cheng Li <c.l@huawei.com> Wed, 04 October 2023 09:00 UTC

Return-Path: <c.l@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 609A3C1BE882 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 02:00:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 IMXUv4MtzGxw for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 02:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C4C0C15199C for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 02:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frapeml500001.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.226]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4S0pVw6zW8z67ySC; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 16:58:00 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggpemm500003.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.56) by frapeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.31; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 11:00:42 +0200
Received: from dggpemm500003.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.56]) by dggpemm500003.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.56]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.031; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 17:00:40 +0800
From: Cheng Li <c.l@huawei.com>
To: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] Working Group Adoption call and IPR Call for draft-xie-idr-mpbgp-extension-4map6-05 (9/26 - 10/10/2023)
Thread-Index: Adnw2QDx/n+lUhfiQi+z34iIENpzBgFuj36wAAL38vA=
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2023 09:00:40 +0000
Message-ID: <90f573f094d049d6aaab69531b2cf020@huawei.com>
References: <BYAPR08MB4872BA0BC06F5646742B4CD2B3C2A@BYAPR08MB4872.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <e0965118643645ab9dfb202cc3109eba@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <e0965118643645ab9dfb202cc3109eba@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.221.205.154]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_90f573f094d049d6aaab69531b2cf020huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Rzmj_LvRU2ZtUxdIPbAbKpORTQY>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Working Group Adoption call and IPR Call for draft-xie-idr-mpbgp-extension-4map6-05 (9/26 - 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: Wed, 04 Oct 2023 09:00:51 -0000

It is an interesting draft, and also a useful draft to me.

Regarding the motivation, I think it is valid to do so to help IPv6 migration.
The draft is well written, and the logic is clear, so I support the adoption. It has reached a good point to be a beginning of a WG item.

Some comments:
Nits:
1. Introduction: s/[I-D./draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay]/ [I-D.draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay]
I am not sure what kind of method the authors are using to write this draft. But I recommend to use markdown to rewrite it. In this way, you can avoid a lots problems of editing, such as this one. We cannot click it and jump to the referenced draft.

Comments:
2. Error handling and security sections should be enhanced, you may meet the same requests in later stage in WGLC. I am handling similar problem of several drafts now 😊

Suggestions:
3. also, the authorship should be handled early. I have met some troubles on this already, it is always not easy to handle that, so it will be good to do it early.

Thanks,
Cheng



From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Giuseppe Fioccola
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 9:47 AM
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>; idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] Working Group Adoption call and IPR Call for draft-xie-idr-mpbgp-extension-4map6-05 (9/26 - 10/10/2023)

Hi All,
I have read the draft and I support its adoption.
I agree with the need to define MP-BGP extension for  IPv4/IPv6 mapping advertisement in order to enable IPv4 service delivery in multi-domain IPv6-only underlay networks. It can help network operators that operate whole multi-domain networks or even single domains of multi-domain networks.

Regards,

Giuseppe

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 2:31 AM
To: idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] Working Group Adoption call and IPR Call for draft-xie-idr-mpbgp-extension-4map6-05 (9/26 - 10/10/2023)

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call from 9/26/2023 to 10/10/2023 for
draft-xie-idr-mpbgp-extension-4map6-05.txt
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xie-idr-mpbgp-extension-4map6/).

The authors should respond to this email indicating whether they know of
any IPR relating to this draft?

In your comments, please provide the following information
“Support” or “no support”.

Please consider these questions:
1) does the 4map6 attribute help
Operators connect islands of IPv4-only support through
IPv6 only core.

2) Does this draft provide technical guidance
on how this attribute is formatted and used in BGP?

3) Do you think this is the right direction for
To solve this problem?

Sue Hares