Re: [Idr] draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution

["Chengli (Cheng Li)" <[e-mail]>]

CC to IDR WG ML

Cheng


From: Chengli (Cheng Li)
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 11:45 AM
To: 'Shraddha Hegde' <[e-mail]>; Shraddha Hegde <shraddha=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution

Hi Shraddha,

Sorry for my delay. We plan to update the draft by IETF 105. Please see my reply inline.

Thanks,
Cheng



From: Shraddha Hegde [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 2:19 PM
To: Shraddha Hegde <shraddha=[e-mail]<mailto:shraddha=[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution

Authors,

Any update on these comments?

Rgds
Shraddha

From: Idr <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Shraddha Hegde
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 9:51 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [Idr] draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution

Authors,


I have a few comments on the document.

1. Section 3 :SR Policy for Path Identifier
Change to "Path Identifier for SR Policy"
 [Cheng] Looks better. Path Identifier in SR policy?  Will update in next revision.


2. sec 3 SR Policy for Path Identifier

The  path segment can appear at both segment-list level and SR policy level, and it could also appear only
at one level depending upon usecase. Path segment at segment list level and at SR-Policy level may be
same or may be different based on usecase and the ID allocation scope.
[Cheng] Agree.

3. I think there should be a separate section on allocation of Path Identifier.
The scope of allocation and resultant scaling considerations.

[Cheng] Let's see how to add it on next revision.

4. SR Path Segment Sub-TLV
The length of the SR Path Segment is defined to be of variable length.
This should be well defined for SR-MPLS to be 20 bit and  upto 128 bit
for SRv6.
 [Cheng] Agree, but I think 32bit for SR-MPLS will be better.


Rgds
Shraddha