IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn Thu, 09 February 2023 01:52 UTC

Return-Path: <peng.shaofu@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 D26C4C153CA0 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 17:52:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.894
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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_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 XCillWAgYMKY for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 17:52:46 -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 90683C152565 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 17:52:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.251.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4PC0Gn6D1cz8QrkZ for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 09:52:01 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxct.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4PC0GC3NQNz501Qs; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 09:51:31 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njb2app07.zte.com.cn ([10.55.22.95]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 3191pLpe033073; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 09:51:21 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njy2app01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 09:51:22 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2023 09:51:22 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af963e4519a436af819
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202302090951225066527@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR08MB48725B762B56D0ABE9710E77B3CC9@BYAPR08MB4872.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: BYAPR08MB48725B762B56D0ABE9710E77B3CC9@BYAPR08MB4872.namprd08.prod.outlook.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn
To: shares@ndzh.com
Cc: idr@ietf.org, liu.yao71@zte.com.cn
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 3191pLpe033073
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-FangMail-Miltered: at cgslv5.04-192.168.250.137.novalocal with ID 63E451C1.001 by FangMail milter!
X-FangMail-Envelope: 1675907521/4PC0Gn6D1cz8QrkZ/63E451C1.001/192.168.251.13/[192.168.251.13]/mxct.zte.com.cn/<peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 63E451C1.001/4PC0Gn6D1cz8QrkZ
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/a3T68nLWyEHEbcEpMtN34gLgvU8>
Subject: Re: [Idr] 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: Thu, 09 Feb 2023 01:52:47 -0000

Hi Sue,






I support the adoption of this draft as a co-author. 


I know there is an IPR related to this draft and it has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules.






Regards,


PSF







Original



From: SusanHares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: idr@ietf.org <idr@ietf.org>;
Cc: 刘尧00165286;彭少富10053815;
Date: 2023年01月27日 22:26
Subject: draft-zhou-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-06 - Adoption call (1/27/2023 to 2/10/2023




This adoption begins a two week WG Adoption call for


draft-zhou-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp-06.txt


https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhou-idr-bgp-srmpls-elp/


 


The authors should respond to this message with


Email that indicates whether they know of any IPR


related to this draft.


 


In your discussions please consider if this WG


should approve an  extension to Segment flags defined in the


draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-20.txt .


 


 


The existing flags are the following


 


2.4.4.2.12.  Segment Flags


 


   The Segment Types sub-TLVs described above may contain the following


   flags in the "Flags" field defined in Section 6.8:


 


    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   |V|A|S|B|       |


   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


 


   Figure 22: Segment Flags


 


The changes proposed by this draft are the addition


Of 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 is applicable to Segment Types A, C, D, E, F, G and H.  If E-Flag appears with Segment Types B, I, J and K, it MUST be ignored. 
 


Cheerily, Sue

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email