[Idr] Re: draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-09 - WG adoption call (7/22/2024 to 8/9/2024)

liu.yao71@zte.com.cn Mon, 29 July 2024 07:20 UTC

Return-Path: <liu.yao71@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 6E042C14F61B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 00:20:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 6ej1S3thwubi for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 00:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
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 3D259C14F6F4 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 00:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4WXV9s1hV3z8XrXB; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 15:20:01 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njy2app01.zte.com.cn ([10.40.12.136]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 46T7Jriq057832; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 15:19:53 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from liu.yao71@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njb2app05[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 15:19:55 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 15:19:55 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afd66a7429bffffffffc08-553bb
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <20240729151955688Dlbe9nJlEKsdH0fT8p6sn@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <CO1PR08MB6611D8EC1AC1698E609F439AB3A92@CO1PR08MB6611.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: CO1PR08MB6611D8EC1AC1698E609F439AB3A92@CO1PR08MB6611.namprd08.prod.outlook.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: liu.yao71@zte.com.cn
To: shares@ndzh.com
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 46T7Jriq057832
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 66A742A1.000/4WXV9s1hV3z8XrXB
Message-ID-Hash: TI24VDWY26EHPF63T7MABOM7PTXKIQFG
X-Message-ID-Hash: TI24VDWY26EHPF63T7MABOM7PTXKIQFG
X-MailFrom: liu.yao71@zte.com.cn
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-idr.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [Idr] Re: draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-09 - WG adoption call (7/22/2024 to 8/9/2024)
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/h_SuSCmuSer_qPygFckJXcRhWzs>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:idr-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:idr-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:idr-leave@ietf.org>

Hi,
I support the adoption of this document.

1.  Is the addition of NRP-ID information to SR BGP-LS information valuable to networks?
Yes. 

2.  Does the draft clearly specify the TLV?
1) About the NRP ID field
The suggestion is to add a reference to the NRP ID field definition in draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-nrp since delivering via BGP SR Policy is one of the origin from which the headend gets the NRP ID of the SR Policy CP from. 
2) The Length is a  2-octet field and the value is 8.

3.  Are there any security concerns about reporting NRP-ID?
No.

4.  Is this document ready to adopt?
Yes.

Regards,
Yao


Original


From: SusanHares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: idr@ietf.org <idr@ietf.org>;
Date: 2024年07月23日 09:43
Subject: [Idr] draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-09 - WG adoption call (7/22/2024 to 8/9/2024)

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list -- idr@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to idr-leave@ietf.org
 

This begins a 2+ week WG adoption call (7/22 to 8/9/2024)for 
draft-chen-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-09.txt.
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp/) 
 
The authors should respond to this WG adoption call with an email with the IPR statement. 
 
Document focus: 
This document defines a new TLV in BGP-LS to report the NRP-ID
associated with an SR Candidate Policy Path (CP). 
 
Links to Spring: During the 5/20/2024 interim, the following question was raised:
What is the relationship between the information in this draft and the information in draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments?
 
Ran answered the following: 
Due to the resource SID mechanism defined in the draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments/)

the headend node does not have information about the relationship between 
Candidate Path (CP) and NRP IDs, so it currently does not consider reporting the 
relationship between CP and NRP ID. The current draft is only for the scenario 
where data packets carry NRP ID.  The NRP ID is used with the normal SR SID as 
the resource used will be indicated by the NRP-ID.  An SR Policy candidate path(CP) 
may be instantiated with a specific NRP on the headend node via a local configuration, 
PCEP, or BGP SR Policy signaling. Then the state and attributes of the NRP associated 
with the candidate path of SR policy can be distributed to the controller.
 
In your discussion, please consider:
 

Is the addition of NRP-ID information to SR BGP-LS information valuable to networks?

Does the draft clearly specify the TLV?

Are there any security concerns about reporting NRP-ID?

Is this document ready to adopt? 


 
Cheerily, Sue