Return-Path: 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 5E7BB12013A for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:56:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=futurewei.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 SsmPVI2KXApZ for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:56:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM05-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr710106.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.71.106]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CC83120129 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:56:44 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=jLnRBi0Nt1cgTufmvRAjrpRwPUb2tRwPkkbYO985eYOxgUnOF+oQnpXHJCC1GNjPDVY7w6H0KG2FBlOcdl1tu8qOIWPjbkt4bvIDhhnYHR5pnGEkPonqTj7JOGGiQBc4OtpsdIU21UhDK+hYIKRHjwJ4lcY2ZbWsymWcqGy4fjYdvwg7VV0xmThPLZ3Tma+xSkp9lphHaUmXLvM4Vpvv3xiKigZ2OYxucutX+2pYCODBCAbN9WzEyIag3DXKMdF5n4IA8VrFqY21UVyw/NIaOm2Le8SCdD+1gMDjMQrZsRb++M6C1Dz8LCyRaFhbZFoQyx6k+rvOesyUrrUbCgkQ3Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=a1dslJKGF1WzaPwwWmoTDpWpWVefDYRqhr345/SHppA=; b=Z9djja+1pw7TEmrdDdhs/5DHV8fulnpjaLPix3jli1+dewVR1SBCnAFSc+FpUnE2bMfrzP96K60QrfnmZvoJQqglodLdpXVkl52kzyvFG4/bCnxusqwxVOt8UrKh2vgl2o77xSyPIlUDk+ojSDe9GwlZxvkCI4Pu/PWFA/gsaOj6T7cXcxXZLnuVpdn5OvR8HzWcMDxASWI0IKTHIRL1etrFRBt/d9fGS6TId5hB9p6EgZ0szqCUov5HgO/QVai/8JcxJbXSjYimEEE/2Q/JJbFCXUrR8lof1b7bwp5g/iCnQTq7NONRKLYO0FX2qKi8VJpDnoKJowDlsgBXjQgU7Q== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=futurewei.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=futurewei.com; dkim=pass header.d=futurewei.com; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=Futurewei.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=a1dslJKGF1WzaPwwWmoTDpWpWVefDYRqhr345/SHppA=; b=pjBLU03yQeZxzQiATbB/YUlOqEU5MKAO0nuKCS9lS/syEq4ZJEkJl9EgIE7MreSqt7vn/7Yz5U73dVILna9ooPDL7Re3Q9G+LHAMEE95lTBu2gbXve7PuqULECwLHtuQJtEhUzOEcMCNWkP5IP2nCKf7WjCxUZLB12oNJOU/Pbg= Received: from BY5PR13MB3569.namprd13.prod.outlook.com (10.255.138.147) by BY5PR13MB3681.namprd13.prod.outlook.com (10.186.135.81) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2284.20; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 19:56:42 +0000 Received: from BY5PR13MB3569.namprd13.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7045:1259:9171:d4]) by BY5PR13MB3569.namprd13.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7045:1259:9171:d4%5]) with mapi id 15.20.2284.009; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 19:56:42 +0000 From: Linda Dunbar To: Susan Hares , 'idr wg' Thread-Topic: [Idr] Adoption: draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03.txt and draft-li-sr-policy-path-segment-01.txt [9/17 to 10/1/2019] Thread-Index: AdVtdHc29FIBUpzKSseFCqrVBuGyHABfmgPQAAtoJ6A= Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 19:56:42 +0000 Message-ID: References: <016601d56d75$e3756320$aa602960$@ndzh.com> <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D934B9674@DGGEMM532-MBX.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D934B9674@DGGEMM532-MBX.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=linda.dunbar@futurewei.com; x-originating-ip: [12.111.81.95] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 46786acc-4631-40f8-eae1-08d73d3b7e3c x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600167)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BY5PR13MB3681; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BY5PR13MB3681: x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 3 x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8273; x-forefront-prvs: 016572D96D x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(4636009)(136003)(366004)(376002)(346002)(39850400004)(396003)(199004)(189003)(6116002)(66446008)(64756008)(66476007)(66556008)(186003)(6506007)(53546011)(2906002)(26005)(66066001)(102836004)(33656002)(236005)(55016002)(9686003)(6306002)(54896002)(6246003)(790700001)(86362001)(229853002)(99286004)(76176011)(6436002)(71190400001)(71200400001)(3846002)(7696005)(52536014)(5660300002)(44832011)(478600001)(476003)(486006)(11346002)(74316002)(316002)(81156014)(81166006)(8936002)(66946007)(606006)(966005)(8676002)(14454004)(110136005)(14444005)(446003)(256004)(76116006)(25786009)(7736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY5PR13MB3681; H:BY5PR13MB3569.namprd13.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: futurewei.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 3ekeQ8QWpMeXcKaRjWkQ+ctESm/MsVsmWbWwesKvd+dyE/XPa0VGBe5hhB+C4DWoacGONQhm1FjARK2EgrIq4OJ/30AONcJUc9d8fIje3OWUoQyfHDOjjvNEW9uLt5+vNAvbtYKfGCP7vf/KWYDBPWz4O+TU7GRFUWkQKwawORAhpYqF5k3DIiEnMQt6ngAKOUA3w3UeI5Jbw4j0WMtah/cxoTj5T7kauZZ88UAIGk/BFkVmkg68MzoFOIlZ5lsmsh3DMhDctPWaWwYAWigpjJnheC8zdlVjj5M4/Ag1snP/Y2JwkRHsL+BEkknnBQP6tdc/3L3hKH112xMO80udSjKNT690hOcVYPGH6LEY3uTdetrEX1HtwJSSFIeayFA4qBrf3L/Zr/mgqQEvfXARUgzMUcHdHXR7jLENLcydreg= x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BY5PR13MB35690EA0294F5AD962446DEE85890BY5PR13MB3569namp_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: Futurewei.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 46786acc-4631-40f8-eae1-08d73d3b7e3c X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Sep 2019 19:56:42.5581 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 0fee8ff2-a3b2-4018-9c75-3a1d5591fedc X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: oF9VkN772skUkNiltpp4YkTSA3KJEV6nK66XlZTF1lcZOPMfIFq99+ygxueguuS53F2DVe9cV8z7AMwvBcNlcA== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY5PR13MB3681 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption: draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03.txt and draft-li-sr-policy-path-segment-01.txt [9/17 to 10/1/2019] X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 19:56:48 -0000 --_000_BY5PR13MB35690EA0294F5AD962446DEE85890BY5PR13MB3569namp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have read through both documents. I support WG adoption with the followin= g comments: Path Segment is one of the segments in the Segment List, correct? But draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution-01 has a statement say= ing that Path Segment can be a list of SIDs (Section 3 on Page 3). Does it = mean that Path Segment can be mapped to multiple SIDs? "The Path Segment can be used for identifying an SR path(specified by SID l= ist)". The following statement of draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution= -01 seems to indicate that Path Segment is one of the Path attributes, just= like an attribute for the Path QoS attribute, is it correct? "For each SR path, it may also have its own path attributes, and Path Segme= nt is one of them." draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03 has a statement in the Abstra= ct stating that the document is to define ways for collecting configuration= and states of SR policies by BGP-LS. So, it really not SR Policies Extensi= ons (as stated in the title), is it? Linda Dunbar From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 12:35 AM To: 'idr wg' > Subject: [Idr] Adoption: draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03.txt = and draft-li-sr-policy-path-segment-01.txt [9/17 to 10/1/2019] This begins a 2 week WG Adoption call two related drafts [9/17 to 10/1/2019= ] * draft-li-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03.txt and * draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-01.txt. You can access these two drafts at the following location: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment= / https://datatracker.ietf..org/doc/draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment/ The authors have pointed out that the adoption of this draft since the following SR-MPLS Path Segment draft has been adopted: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-00 Please consider the following questions in your responses? 1. Should this SR Policy technology be included in BGP for SR-MPLS Spring has adopted the draft, but IDR can provide feedback to spring about putting this technology in BGP. 1. Is this technology a good way to implement the required Features in BGP? 1. Is this technology ready for adoption? 1. Do you have any concerns about adopting this technology? Cheers, Susan Hares --_000_BY5PR13MB35690EA0294F5AD962446DEE85890BY5PR13MB3569namp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have read through both documents. I support WG ado= ption with the following comments:

 

Path Segment is one of the segments in the Segment L= ist, correct?

But draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution= -01 has a statement saying that Path Segment can be a list of SIDs (Section= 3 on Page 3). Does it mean that Path Segment can be mapped to multiple SID= s?

“The Path Segme= nt can be used for identifying an SR path(specified by SID list)”.

 

The following statement of draft-li-idr-sr-policy-pa= th-segment-distribution-01 seems to indicate that Path Segment is one of th= e Path attributes, just like an attribute for the Path QoS attribute, is it= correct?

“For each SR pat= h, it may also have its own path attributes, and Path Segment is one of the= m.”

 

draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03 has a = statement in the Abstract stating that the document is to define ways for c= ollecting configuration and states of SR policies by BGP-LS. So, it really = not SR Policies Extensions (as stated in the title), is it?

 

 

Linda Dunbar

=  

=  

=  

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 12:35 AM
To: 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org>= ;
Subject: [Idr] Adoption: draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-= 03.txt and draft-li-sr-policy-path-segment-01.txt [9/17 to 10/1/2019]<= /o:p>

 

This begins a 2 week WG Adoption call two related dr= afts [9/17 to 10/1/2019]

  • draft-li-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03.txt and
  • draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-01.txt.

 

You can access these two drafts at the following loc= ation:

 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-i= dr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment/

 

https://datatracker.ietf..org/doc/draft-li-idr-sr-poli= cy-path-segment/

 

The authors have pointed out that the adoption of th= is

draft since the following  SR-MPLS Path Segment= draft has been adopted:

 

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-s= egment-00

 

Please consider the following questions in your resp= onses?

 

  1. Should this SR Policy technology be included in BGP for SR-MPLS

 

Spring has adopted the draft, but IDR can pro= vide feedback

to spring about putting this technology in BG= P.

 

  1. Is this technology a good way to implement the required

Features in BGP?

 

  1. Is this technology ready for adoption?

 

  1. Do you have any concerns about adopting this technology?

 

 

Cheers, Susan Hares

--_000_BY5PR13MB35690EA0294F5AD962446DEE85890BY5PR13MB3569namp_--