Re: [Idr] WG Adoption - draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03.txt - 2 Week WG adoption call (3/30 - 4/13)

Weiqiang Cheng <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com> Thu, 02 April 2020 06:27 UTC

Return-Path: <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.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 8ABA23A090C; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 23:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 nxVGLTZf1x6D; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 23:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmccmta3.chinamobile.com (cmccmta3.chinamobile.com [221.176.66.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A4353A0908; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 23:27:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.121.13]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app11-12011 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2eeb5e8585d17f7-558ac; Thu, 02 Apr 2020 14:27:30 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2eeb5e8585d17f7-558ac
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from cmcc (unknown[10.2.53.197]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvr07-12007 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee75e8585d18cf-90285; Thu, 02 Apr 2020 14:27:30 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee75e8585d18cf-90285
From: "Weiqiang Cheng" <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com>
To: <idr@ietf.org>
Cc: <draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu@ietf.org>
References: <01a201d6068f$c1f3aaf0$45db00d0$@ndzh.com> <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB029A2390@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB029A2390@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 14:27:31 +0800
Message-ID: <00e801d608b7$ca38b640$5eaa22c0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00E9_01D608FA.D85BF640"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdYGjhUttAt3lPHsTfmnpSciWcUkAAAmms7gAGN6EBA=
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/eXyancN8YsOyXWZ-LpdTyXa5n48>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Adoption - draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03.txt - 2 Week WG adoption call (3/30 - 4/13)
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, 02 Apr 2020 06:27:53 -0000

The use case is valid.

Support the adoption. 

 

B.R.

Weiqiang Cheng

 

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 8:36 PM
To: 'IDR List' <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] WG Adoption - draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03.txt - 2 Week
WG adoption call (3/30 - 4/13)

 

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for
draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03.txt 

 

You can view this draft at: 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu/

 

This draft distributes path maximum transmission unit for the 

SR policy via BGP.  

 

Any discussion regarding on whether one desires 

SR Policy should be clearly distinguished from the 

Technical discussions on the mechanisms to pass SR policy MTU. 

 

The questions for the people to discuss on this draft are: 

 

1) Is there a need for this mechanism in networks using 

        MPLS-SR or SR-V6 and SR policy? 

 

2) Are there any error handling issues besides what is being 

     Taken care of in RFC7752bis-03.txt

 

3) Do you think this draft is ready to be adopted? 

     In this category, please list any concerns you have

     regarding adoption.  This category can include 

     general concerns about BGP-LS, MPLS-SR, 

    SR-V6, and SR-Policy.   

 

Cheers, Sue Hares