Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd-05.txt (7/15 to 7/29/2020)

"chenhuan6@chinatelecom.cn" <chenhuan6@chinatelecom.cn> Sun, 26 July 2020 04:51 UTC

Return-Path: <chenhuan6@chinatelecom.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 493663A0AE2 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jul 2020 21:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.777
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.777 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.001, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 dR-EfL179NFo for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jul 2020 21:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chinatelecom.cn (prt-mail.chinatelecom.cn [42.123.76.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D3B23A0ADF for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jul 2020 21:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
HMM_SOURCE_IP: 172.18.0.218:60629.1259939710
HMM_ATTACHE_NUM: 0000
HMM_SOURCE_TYPE: SMTP
Received: from clientip-113.119.195.183?logid-ab9a4fba27af452eb51a829ba1e60ece (unknown [172.18.0.218]) by chinatelecom.cn (HERMES) with SMTP id 7A89C280132; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 12:51:08 +0800 (CST)
X-189-SAVE-TO-SEND: 44093218@chinatelecom.cn
Received: from ([172.18.0.218]) by App0025 with ESMTP id ab9a4fba27af452eb51a829ba1e60ece for shares@ndzh.com; Sun Jul 26 12:51:15 2020
X-Transaction-ID: ab9a4fba27af452eb51a829ba1e60ece
X-filter-score: filter<0>
X-Real-From: chenhuan6@chinatelecom.cn
X-Receive-IP: 172.18.0.218
X-MEDUSA-Status: 0
Sender: chenhuan6@chinatelecom.cn
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 12:51:21 +0800
From: "chenhuan6@chinatelecom.cn" <chenhuan6@chinatelecom.cn>
To: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
References: <003701d65aa9$689a64d0$39cf2e70$@ndzh.com>, <MN2PR13MB3117E2F0E81650540B8CBC1FF27E0@MN2PR13MB3117.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.2.16.188[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <202007261250209213259@chinatelecom.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart002616500157_=----"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/hZme_B6OBnG_F3IeE1ppIbjSz5o>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd-05.txt (7/15 to 7/29/2020)
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: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 04:51:57 -0000

Hi Everyone, 
     I support the WGLC of the draft.
    The rpd is very useful for us to deploy the bgp route policy dynamic.
 
    BR.


HUANAN CHEN(陈华南)
Data Communication Research Department
Research Institute of China Telecom Co.,Ltd.
Mail:chenhuan6@chinatelecom.cn 




From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 9:11 AM
To: idr@ietf.org <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd-05.txt (7/15 to 7/29/2020) 
 
This begins a 2 week WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd 
from 7/15 to 7/29/2020.  You can obtain this draft at: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rpd/
 
This draft defines a new AFI/SAFI and new atoms 
for the Wide Communities.  This WG LC has been delayed 
as I waited for a resubmission of the Wide Communities draft.  
I had hoped to do these 2 WG LC in parallel. 
 
I’ve not received the Wide Communities draft, but we will 
start this WGLC to provide feedback to the authors. 
We may have to run a short follow-up to this WG LC
If there are changes to the Wide Communities draft during 
Its WG LC. 
 
There is an IPR statement on this draft.
 
In your responses please answer the following questions: 
 
1) Do you feel this draft has an solution that is acceptable 
   With the IPR as a WG RFC?  
It is acceptable.
 
2) Do you feel this draft is ready to publish?
It is ready. 
3) Do you know of implementations of this draft?  
Two implementations.
4) Do you know of deployments of this draft?  
If so, is this feature useful in the deploy ments. 
It is useful. 
5) Do you feel that Wide Communities is ready for 
Publication?  
 It is ready.

Cheerily, Susan Hares