Re: [Idr] IPR Call and WG Adoption for draft-qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 19 November 2020 07:04 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 4463A3A1060 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 23:04:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
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 hPYgJrOO8o_v for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 23:04:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (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 06AD03A10A0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 23:04:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Cc9fD5dHRz1nvQf; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 23:04:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1605769476; bh=IQ2QXj8H78Ae0InKpL8s11sOtghg8vb2gY8CsMnFDgg=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=fBwyGEKAoTibsv+lq1agPKh5VhlDcN5/1BCSpYW5+k1AU/PIA81yxzSyuDi32EsT6 uRlRCT1caNN8fB0hKAm6sPtsI7nzD7ROHX9NVJYnDG2n/4Tu+vVtL5ghFqzbgPzd43 huUj3Uu97e6E4ffn52VgcWXNYX6PoF6O5O1LC104=
X-Quarantine-ID: <p7luFwU1cxKs>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [IPv6:2600:380:1911:7b80:7012:76a0:5561:b9a0] (unknown [IPv6:2600:380:1911:7b80:7012:76a0:5561:b9a0]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Cc9fC4tMKz1nvQd; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 23:04:35 -0800 (PST)
To: John Scudder <jgs=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, Hares Susan <shares@ndzh.com>
Cc: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
References: <055301d6b0dc$f84da4a0$e8e8ede0$@ndzh.com> <161FEDAA-58E7-41C8-BD31-088F8C881144@juniper.net>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <2da2451c-4389-7453-a32c-8b153fef3aee@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 02:04:32 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <161FEDAA-58E7-41C8-BD31-088F8C881144@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/TR6s8IOXElbQwV_eClBUPOv7ZNU>
Subject: Re: [Idr] IPR Call and WG Adoption for draft-qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)
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: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 07:04:41 -0000

Yes, I have cleared my objection.
Yours,
Joel

On 11/19/2020 1:53 AM, John Scudder wrote:
> Hi Sue,
> 
> Here’s my tally on this one:
> 
> Yes (but co-authors):
> - Giuseppe F
> - Yali
> - Fengwei
> - Tianran
> 
> Yes:
> - Peng Liu
> - Yisong
> - Huzhibo
> - Chen Huan
> - Shuanglong
> - Fabio B
> - Massimo N
> - Jie
> - Mauro C
> - Weiqiang
> - Ran Pang
> - Huaimo
> - Mach
> - Dhruv
> - Chengli
> 
> No:
> - Ketan — interaction with SR policy module isn’t clear, "might seem 
> like an uncoordinated protocol development effort”. (Not explicitly ’no’ 
> but I read it that way for now.)
> - Zafar — "It is better to have a framework draft to reach maturity 
> (adoption) first.”
> 
> Comments/questions:
> - Joel H — frame behavior not adopted by relevant WGs, therefore 
> premature to adopt?
> 
> Some of the concerns raised are potentially serious. I think we can call 
> Zafar “in the rough”. I’m not sure if Ketan and Giuseppe fully converged 
> during the WG meeting — do you have a sense of this? And I think Joel 
> cleared his concern later. So Ketan’s is the only concern I think is 
> still outstanding, but I’d like to be clearer on it before proceeding.
> 
> —John
> 
>> On Nov 2, 2020, at 12:56 AM, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com 
>> <mailto:shares@ndzh.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>>
>>
>> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for 
>> draft-qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit-04.txt (11/2/2020 to 11/16/2020).
>> The draft can be accessed at:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu/ 
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!S2_evVk0qH-qYiwpJrdQMKbVgbTIQlCdbDTqTHwgxWJUCrM2yIeftGvCmylR-A$>
>> The authors should provide IPR statements by 11/5/2020 so the IDR WG 
>> can consider the IPR status in their
>> decision.
>> This draft adds the IFIT sub-TLV to the BGP Tunnel Encaps attribute 
>> for the SR policy tunnel type. This sub-TLV is only valid for SR 
>> Policy tunnel types.  Within the IFIT  sub-TLV value field, 5 sub-TLVs 
>> may be included (4 for IOAM and 1 for Enhanced Alternate Marking).
>> The IDR co-chairs thank the authors for their patience.  The WG 
>> adoption call for this draft has been delayed by the process of 
>> switching shepherds for BGP Tunnel Encaps draft.  Many BESS and IDR 
>> drafts currently refer to the BGP tunnel encapsulation drafts.
>> In your review of this draft, please differentiate between the following:
>> ·Support/rejection of In-situ Flow Telemetry (IFIT) as a IP routing 
>> technology,
>> ·Support/rejection of alternate marking as a IP routing technology,
>> ·Support/rejection of adding new sub-TLVS for SR Policy tunnel type of 
>> BGP Tunnel Encap Attribute, and
>> ·Specific issues with the descriptions of these features in the draft.
>> Cheers, Susan Hares
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idr mailing list
>> Idr@ietf.org <mailto:Idr@ietf.org>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!S2_evVk0qH-qYiwpJrdQMKbVgbTIQlCdbDTqTHwgxWJUCrM2yIeftGv96xWXpg$ 
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!S2_evVk0qH-qYiwpJrdQMKbVgbTIQlCdbDTqTHwgxWJUCrM2yIeftGv96xWXpg$>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>