Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00 and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02 (2/15/2024 to 2/29/2024)

Qiuyuanxiang <qiuyuanxiang@h3c.com> Sat, 02 March 2024 04:48 UTC

Return-Path: <qiuyuanxiang@h3c.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 CDF35C14F60E for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Mar 2024 20:48:01 -0800 (PST)
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, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 qD73pfGi7x_P for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Mar 2024 20:47:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from h3cspam02-ex.h3c.com (smtp.h3c.com [60.191.123.50]) (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 5E63EC14F699 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Mar 2024 20:47:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com ([172.25.15.154]) by h3cspam02-ex.h3c.com with ESMTP id 4224lbpX076378; Sat, 2 Mar 2024 12:47:38 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from qiuyuanxiang@h3c.com)
Received: from DAG6EX02-IMDC.srv.huawei-3com.com (unknown [10.62.14.11]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BC7A2004BA9; Sat, 2 Mar 2024 12:48:49 +0800 (CST)
Received: from DAG6EX01-IMDC.srv.huawei-3com.com (10.62.14.10) by DAG6EX02-IMDC.srv.huawei-3com.com (10.62.14.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1258.27; Sat, 2 Mar 2024 12:47:37 +0800
Received: from DAG6EX01-IMDC.srv.huawei-3com.com ([fe80::1d4d:847c:a7e3:1f10]) by DAG6EX01-IMDC.srv.huawei-3com.com ([fe80::1d4d:847c:a7e3:1f10%20]) with mapi id 15.02.1258.027; Sat, 2 Mar 2024 12:47:37 +0800
From: Qiuyuanxiang <qiuyuanxiang@h3c.com>
To: "shares@ndzh.com" <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00 and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02 (2/15/2024 to 2/29/2024)
Thread-Index: AQHabEgUHAQN2n+dpECQftiJlwE9trEj4Dtg
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2024 04:47:36 +0000
Message-ID: <62d4d204fde84b6b994871e39124687a@h3c.com>
References: DM6PR08MB48572F86EA48D3FDB532EA21B34D2@DM6PR08MB4857.namprd08.prod.outlook.com <202403021018094067255@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <202403021018094067255@zte.com.cn>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.99.152.148]
x-sender-location: DAG2
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_62d4d204fde84b6b994871e39124687ah3ccom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-DNSRBL:
X-SPAM-SOURCE-CHECK: pass
X-MAIL: h3cspam02-ex.h3c.com 4224lbpX076378
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/T_ijEox-NPkhgZRVh4pVyvMWZxk>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00 and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02 (2/15/2024 to 2/29/2024)
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: Sat, 02 Mar 2024 04:48:01 -0000

Hi Sue&WG,

I support the publication of both of these drafts.



Best Regards,

Yuanxiang


Original
From: SusanHares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: idr@ietf.org <idr@ietf.org>;
Date: 2024年02月16日 06:13
Subject: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00 and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02 (2/15/2024 to 2/29/2024)
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
Greetings IDR:

This begins a 2-week WG LC on the following two drafts created from the text in
draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18 – that the IDR WG approved for publication:


  *   draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00  (proposed standard)

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi/

  *   draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02 (experimental)

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext/

The Authors (per IETF policy) are asked to respond to this message with a
message indicating whether they know of any undisclosed IPR as the documents stand now.
Please note there are 3 IPR declarations on these drafts.

History:
======
After reviewing draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18, Andrew Alston (IDR RTG AD)
asked that draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy be split into two parts because
some segment types (C-L) did not have two implementations.
Therefore, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-srsegtypes-ext-02 contains the text for
Segment types C-L.   This split has been discussed at IETF meetings.

Since Andrew Alston had personally implemented this draft,
he also asked for additional reviews on procedures.

During this review, the procedures regarding the link to RFC9012 were improved.

Issues in call:
============
During the WG should note that the procedures specified in
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-00 do the following:


  1.  Only apply to the SR Policy Tunnel (15) + SR Policy SAFI
  2.  Do not require any of the TLVs defined in RFC9012 for other tunnel types
  3.  May ignore TLVs defined in RFC9012 for other tunnel types
  4.  Do not use the validation process in RFC9012, and depend on the SRPM to validate content.
  5.  Makes changes to Color Extended Community [RFC9012] to add to 2-bits [C, O]

To support “color-only” (CO)  functions of section 8.8 of [RFC9256]


C0 – type 0 (00) – Specific end-point match (Match endpoint that is BGP NH)
         type 1 (01) - Specific or null end-point match (BGP NH or null (default gw))
         type 2 (10) – Specific, null, or any end-point match (BGP NH, Null, or any endpoint)
         type 3 (11) – Reserved

The SR Policy Tunnel functions in this draft use BGP as a transport mechanism for the
Information contained in the SR Policy.

Please note that these procedures split the context validation away from the
BGP module into the SRPM module.   This split is similar to the BGP-LS split
syntax validation from context validation.

There are multiple implementations of this technology as detailed at:
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/BGP-Implementation-report/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-implement

The WG members are asked to confirm their agreement to the changes made in this document.

If there are questions, please ask them on this mail thread.  Please note any errors in the call are mine (and not the authors).

Cheerily, Sue




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
本邮件及其附件含有新华三集团的保密信息,仅限于发送给上面地址中列出
的个人或群组。禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用(包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、
或散发)本邮件中的信息。如果您错收了本邮件,请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本
邮件!
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from New H3C, which is
intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the
information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial
disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
by phone or email immediately and delete it!