IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] Subject: draft-zhou-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-06 - Adoption call (1/27/2023 to 2/10/2023）

chen.ran@zte.com.cn Mon, 06 February 2023 06:43 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 785B1C14CF01 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Feb 2023 22:43:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 NtF2x0oxLrHo for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Feb 2023 22:43:42 -0800 (PST)
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 60DA5C14CEF9 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Feb 2023 22:43:41 -0800 (PST)
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 4P9Gtb1Mxlz8R041; Mon, 6 Feb 2023 14:43:35 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njb2app05.zte.com.cn ([10.55.22.121]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 3166hTWc098762; Mon, 6 Feb 2023 14:43:29 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from chen.ran@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njy2app03[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Mon, 6 Feb 2023 14:43:31 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2023 14:43:31 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afb63e0a193fffffffff6d8dc5b
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202302061443314200907@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
To: shares@ndzh.com, idr@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 3166hTWc098762
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-FangMail-Miltered: at cgslv5.04-192.168.250.137.novalocal with ID 63E0A197.000 by FangMail milter!
X-FangMail-Envelope: 1675665815/4P9Gtb1Mxlz8R041/63E0A197.000/10.5.228.132/[10.5.228.132]/mse-fl1.zte.com.cn/<chen.ran@zte.com.cn>
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 63E0A197.000/4P9Gtb1Mxlz8R041
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Um_e19kCxGqC3-bsV69HKbWfaYA>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Subject: draft-zhou-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-06 - Adoption call (1/27/2023 to 2/10/2023）
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: Mon, 06 Feb 2023 06:43:46 -0000

Hi Sue,

I support adoption of this draft and I think this draft is useful when centralized controller is used to perform the TE path computation as well as the Entropy Label Position.




Best Regards，

Ran


------------------Original------------------From: SusanHaresTo: idr@ietf.org ;Cc: 刘尧00165286;彭少富10053815;Date: 2023年01月27日 22:26Subject: draft-zhou-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-06 - Adoption call  (1/27/2023 to 2/10/2023" _ue_custom_node_="true">This adoption begins a two week WG Adoption call fordraft-zhou-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-06.txthttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhou-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp/The authors should respond to this message withEmail that indicates whether they know of any IPRrelated to this draft.In your discussions please consider if this WGshould approve an  extension to Segment flags defined in thedraft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-20.txt .The existing flags are the following2.4.4.2.12.  Segment FlagsThe Segment Types sub-TLVs described above may contain the followingflags in the "Flags" field defined in Section 6.8:0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+|V|A|S|B|       |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+Figure 22: Segment FlagsThe changes proposed by this draft are the additionOf an “E” flag to those bits.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+|V|A|S|B|E|     |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+E-Flag: This flag, when set, indicates that presence of < ELI, EL>label pairs which are inserted after this segment.  E-Flag isapplicable to Segment Types A, C, D, E, F, G and H.  If E-Flagappears with Segment Types B, I, J and K, it MUST be ignored.Cheerily, Sue_______________________________________________Idr mailing listIdr@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email