IETF Logo Mail Archive

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]

Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com> Thu, 19 September 2019 14:06 UTC

Return-Path: <lizhenbin@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 952A2120071 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 07:06:21 -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 RFVN8hfHF5OS for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 07:06:17 -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 9662E120047 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 07:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 73C82F2AFFE923EABB21 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 15:06:15 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml724-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.75) by LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 15:06:14 +0100
Received: from lhreml724-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.75) by lhreml724-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.75) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 15:06:14 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.211) by lhreml724-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.75) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 15:06:14 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM532-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.237]) by DGGEMM403-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.211]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:06:09 +0800
From: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org>
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: AdVtdHc29FIBUpzKSseFCqrVBuGyHABfmgPQ
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 14:06:09 +0000
Message-ID: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D934B9674@DGGEMM532-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <016601d56d75$e3756320$aa602960$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <016601d56d75$e3756320$aa602960$@ndzh.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.206.84]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D934B9674DGGEMM532MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/_pWnWnbymoPKowYW2mTITub7Jw0>
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 <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: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 14:06:22 -0000

Support the adoption of the two drafts as the co-author. I think Path Segment is a base work for many applications such as SR OAM, bidirectional SR path and protection.
BGP extensions for the path segment will facilitate the automated solution and reduce the complexity of deployment.

Best Regards,
Zhenbin (Robin)




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]

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.


2)      Is this technology a good way to implement the required

Features in BGP?



3)      Is this technology ready for adoption?



4)      Do you have any concerns about adopting this technology?



Cheers, Susan Hares

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email