[Idr] Re: Shepherd report for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-00
chen.ran@zte.com.cn Thu, 05 September 2024 08:35 UTC
Return-Path: <chen.ran@zte.com.cn>
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 0E7D0C169413 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Sep 2024 01:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=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, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 46zFV0wqR4eC for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Sep 2024 01:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3519C151990 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Sep 2024 01:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4Wzt2r1MKBz8RV7f; Thu, 5 Sep 2024 16:35:00 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njy2app03.zte.com.cn ([10.40.13.14]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 4858Yp0H043214; Thu, 5 Sep 2024 16:34:51 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from chen.ran@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njb2app07[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Thu, 5 Sep 2024 16:34:54 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2024 16:34:54 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2aff66d96d2e03e-cdbb0
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <20240905163454409PD7MRQaI0MRSKhGnyL7pJ@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <CO1PR08MB66112ADA823C466DA07EBA16B3912@CO1PR08MB6611.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: CO1PR08MB66111E5358166D39D5915DACB3972@CO1PR08MB6611.namprd08.prod.outlook.com,CO1PR08MB66112ADA823C466DA07EBA16B3912@CO1PR08MB6611.namprd08.prod.outlook.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
To: shares@ndzh.com
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 4858Yp0H043214
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 66D96D34.003/4Wzt2r1MKBz8RV7f
Message-ID-Hash: TL4DGAHFA6PR5MCMSHAAQ7PBHEQEXKV4
X-Message-ID-Hash: TL4DGAHFA6PR5MCMSHAAQ7PBHEQEXKV4
X-MailFrom: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-idr.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: idr@ietf.org, zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn, pangran@chinaunicom.cn
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [Idr] Re: Shepherd report for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-00
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/T2GjYzZhy3HhwBUZaojMT4tAMBQ>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:idr-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:idr-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:idr-leave@ietf.org>
Hi Sue, Thanks a lot for the review. Please see replies inline: Best Regards, Ran Original From: SusanHares <shares@ndzh.com> To: idr@ietf.org <idr@ietf.org>; Cc: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com>;陈然00080434;赵德涛10132546;龚立艳 <gongliyan@chinamobile.com>;zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn <zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn>;庞冉(联通集团中国联通研究院-本部) <pangran@chinaunicom.cn>; Date: 2024年09月02日 01:09 Subject: RE: Shepherd report for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-00 Jie, Ran Chen, Detao, Liyan, Yongqing and Ran Pang: Would you provide me some status information on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-00.txt Do you plan additional technical changes to this draft? Ran: No. The major content of this document is stable. Do you need BGP-LS early allocations for this draft? Ran: Yes. It is recommended to pre-allocate 1218. Do you have 2 implementation of this draft? Ran: Currently, there is only one implementation of this draft. Do you want to go to IDR WG LC this fall (Sept, October, November or December)? Ran: No. Maybe next fall. :) Thank you very much. Cheerily, Sue Hares From: Susan Hares Sent: Friday, August 30, 2024 12:32 PM To: idr@ietf.org Cc: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com>; chen.ran@zte.com.cn; zhao.detao@zte.com.cn; 龚立艳 <gongliyan@chinamobile.com>; zhuyq8@chinatelecom.cn; 庞冉(联通集团中国联通研究院-本部) <pangran@chinaunicom.cn> Subject: Shepherd report for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-00 Jie, Ran Chen, Detao, Liyan, Yongqing, and Ran Pang: This shepherd report is part of the IDR Chairs efforts to do shepherd reports on all IDR WG Document related to BGP-LS. Cheerily, Sue Hares ------------------ Shepherd report for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-00 Status: WG draft, recently adopted (8/12/2024 upload) Prior to WG LC: needs 2 implementations. Shepherd Summary: Editorial changes needed Editorial changes: 1. Section 2, NRP-ID old text: /NRP ID is planned by network operator/ new text: /NRP ID is allocated and administered by network operator./ 2. Section 3, Scalability, last sentence, need clarity on what "this" refers to old text: On the other hand this will only cause an increase in the status reporting information of the head node, the impacts to the BGP control plane are considered acceptable./ Suggested new text:/ On the other hand, the increase in state when NRP increases will cause an increase in the state reported on the head node. Due to this fact, the impact to the BGP control plan is considered acceptable./