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]

"Chengli (Cheng Li)" <chengli13@huawei.com> Tue, 08 October 2019 03:04 UTC

Return-Path: <chengli13@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 B0696120124 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 20:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 8RV9mmQIxJxt for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 20:04:56 -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 3F347120111 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 20:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id C16ADAF539F359EC8DEA; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 04:04:53 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.55) by lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 04:04:52 +0100
Received: from lhreml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.55) by lhreml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 04:04:52 +0100
Received: from DGGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.33) by lhreml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 04:04:52 +0100
Received: from DGGEML529-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.197]) by DGGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::74d9:c659:fbec:21fa%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 11:04:47 +0800
From: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <chengli13@huawei.com>
To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
CC: 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: AdVtdHc29FIBUpzKSseFCqrVBuGyHALbAKqAASjlGYA=
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 03:04:47 +0000
Message-ID: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02722762@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <016601d56d75$e3756320$aa602960$@ndzh.com> <CAB75xn42Yi8Oo9D6gsX+5pXS_8LD9pop-wCq9L2+Z99fTZiBKA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB75xn42Yi8Oo9D6gsX+5pXS_8LD9pop-wCq9L2+Z99fTZiBKA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.130.185.75]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/cQLD4j1tsB-KoRASvRvh4C0rAYc>
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: Tue, 08 Oct 2019 03:04:59 -0000

Hi Dhruv,

Many thanks for your comments, very helpful!

Will check and get back to you later.

Best regards,
Cheng




-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2019 9:16 PM
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
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]

Hi,

I am late by a day, but since chairs have not yet closed the poll - here I am!

I support adoption for both I-Ds.

Yes to first 3 questions and for the 4th - I have some suggestions that can be worked on post adoption applicable for both I-Ds:

- Updated requirement language template as per RFC 8174, especially because you use lowercase normative terms in this document.
- It may good to describe the case where a different path segment at candidate path and segment list would be useful. Also we should make it MUST to include both in the SID list rather than SHOULD.
- Extra 'Reserved' in section 3.1 of [1] (not in the figure)
- Remove 'which is a 128-bits value' in section 3.1 of [1] (as so far you dont specify SRv6 in this I-D)
- We should clarify where is the 'SR Bidirectional Path Sub-TLV' included in.
- Suggested values for IANA, i guess get early IANA allocation post adoption to avoid issues!
- In figures for sub-TLVs the bit numbering is bit off. Move one space to the right.
- Can Path segment be part of the segment list (end of the list)?
Should we add some text?
- Can you recheck that a codepoint for the Path Segment sub-tlv allocated in [1] can be re-used for sub-TLV of SR Segment sub-TLV in [2]? I ask because usually BGP-LS use different registry.
- s/[I-D.li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-distribution]/[I-D.li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment]/

Thanks!
Dhruv

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment/
[2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution-11

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:05 PM Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
>
> 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-se
> gment/
>
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr