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" <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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$>
>> The authors should provide IPR statements by 11/5/2020 so the IDR WG 
>> can consider the IPR status in their
>> decision.
>> This draft adds the IFIT sub-TLV to the BGP Tunnel Encaps attribute 
>> for the SR policy tunnel type. This sub-TLV is only valid for SR 
>> Policy tunnel types.  Within the IFIT  sub-TLV value field, 5 sub-TLVs 
>> may be included (4 for IOAM and 1 for Enhanced Alternate Marking).
>> The IDR co-chairs thank the authors for their patience.  The WG 
>> adoption call for this draft has been delayed by the process of 
>> switching shepherds for BGP Tunnel Encaps draft.  Many BESS and IDR 
>> drafts currently refer to the BGP tunnel encapsulation drafts.
>> In your review of this draft, please differentiate between the following:
>> ·Support/rejection of In-situ Flow Telemetry (IFIT) as a IP routing 
>> technology,
>> ·Support/rejection of alternate marking as a IP routing technology,
>> ·Support/rejection of adding new sub-TLVS for SR Policy tunnel type of 
>> BGP Tunnel Encap Attribute, and
>> ·Specific issues with the descriptions of these features in the draft.
>> Cheers, Susan Hares
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idr mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!S2_evVk0qH-qYiwpJrdQMKbVgbTIQlCdbDTqTHwgxWJUCrM2yIeftGv96xWXpg$ 
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!S2_evVk0qH-qYiwpJrdQMKbVgbTIQlCdbDTqTHwgxWJUCrM2yIeftGv96xWXpg$>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>