IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-03.txt - 2 week WG adoption call

Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan@huawei.com> Fri, 19 April 2019 09:31 UTC

Return-Path: <zhuangshunwan@huawei.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 D731A120041 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 02:31:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 lTTPh-Hdzvsi for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 02:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 177991200FC for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 02:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 6D6B0B9854AA869F9C9D for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 10:31:38 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.75) by lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 10:31:37 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by nkgeml414-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 17:31:25 +0800
From: Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan@huawei.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-03.txt - 2 week WG adoption call
Thread-Index: AdT18PKNf1StrQ3RRRaQiBRQFVL9LwAApx/QACe+arA=
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 09:31:24 +0000
Message-ID: <19AB2A007F56DB4E8257F949A2FB9858E5B76B6B@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <015501d4f5f2$7a72ed70$6f58c850$@ndzh.com> <5316A0AB3C851246A7CA5758973207D463B9CEED@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <5316A0AB3C851246A7CA5758973207D463B9CEED@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.130.202.166]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_19AB2A007F56DB4E8257F949A2FB9858E5B76B6BNKGEML515MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZB686ospJQaEf8LDOypv2RvWlb8>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-03.txt - 2 week WG adoption call
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: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 09:31:42 -0000

Support.

Best Regards,
Shunwan

rom: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 10:25 AM
To: idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-03.txt - 2 week WG adoption call

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-03.txt.  You can access the document at:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions/

During your comments, please consider the following:


1)      Does adding the announcement of seamless S-BFD descriptors via BGP LS address family benefit network provisioning?

2)      Is it important to keep the same BGP-ls information in OSPF, IS-IS, and BGP regarding S-BFD discriminators?

3)      Is this document mature enough for WG Adoption?

4)      Are there any issues that the WG should consider to help quicken the pace of the adoption?

5)      Do you know of planned implementations?  If so, should is this document mature enough to receive early allocation for the BGP-LS code points.

Remember that raising issues regarding document during WG adoption will help us speed this BGP-LS WG document toward WG LC.

Cheerily, Susan Hares

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email