From nobody Mon Nov 2 17:37:08 2020 Return-Path: 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 E0B0E3A0B39 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 17:37:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 9FzBFrqwHuAx for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 17:37:05 -0800 (PST) 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 D89F93A0B41 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 17:37:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 830F12D0B5C84DB7ACD1 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 01:37:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.61) by lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 01:37:03 +0000 Received: from DGGEML422-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.39) by lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 01:37:02 +0000 Received: from DGGEML524-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.10]) by dggeml422-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 09:36:57 +0800 From: wangyali To: Susan Hares , "idr@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Idr] IPR Call and WG Adoption for draft-qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020) Thread-Index: Adaw2PtgBctpKEXkRb++HOEf6MFzKAAp8N8w Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 01:36:56 +0000 Message-ID: <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F405079AF8@dggeml524-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <055301d6b0dc$f84da4a0$e8e8ede0$@ndzh.com> In-Reply-To: <055301d6b0dc$f84da4a0$e8e8ede0$@ndzh.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.48.170.169] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F405079AF8dggeml524mbxchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Idr] IPR Call and WG Adoption for draft-qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020) X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 01:37:07 -0000 --_000_1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F405079AF8dggeml524mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Susan and all, As a co-author, I support the adoption of this draft. I'm not aware of any = IPRs related to this draft. Best regards, Yali From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 1:57 PM To: idr@ietf.org Subject: [Idr] IPR Call and WG Adoption for draft-qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit-04= .txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020) This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit-04.t= xt (11/2/2020 to 11/16/2020). The draft can be accessed at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu/ The authors should provide IPR statements by 11/5/2020 so the IDR WG can co= nsider the IPR status in their decision. This draft adds the IFIT sub-TLV to the BGP Tunnel Encaps attribute for the= SR policy tunnel type. This sub-TLV is only valid for SR Policy tunnel typ= es. Within the IFIT sub-TLV value field, 5 sub-TLVs may be included (4 fo= r IOAM and 1 for Enhanced Alternate Marking). The IDR co-chairs thank the authors for their patience. The WG adoption ca= ll for this draft has been delayed by the process of switching shepherds fo= r BGP Tunnel Encaps draft. Many BESS and IDR drafts currently refer to the= BGP tunnel encapsulation drafts. In your review of this draft, please differentiate between the following: * Support/rejection of In-situ Flow Telemetry (IFIT) as a IP routing= technology, * Support/rejection of alternate marking as a IP routing technology, * Support/rejection of adding new sub-TLVS for SR Policy tunnel type= of BGP Tunnel Encap Attribute, and * Specific issues with the descriptions of these features in the dra= ft. Cheers, Susan Hares --_000_1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F405079AF8dggeml524mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Susan and all,=

 

As a co-author, I supp= ort the adoption of this draft. I'm not aware of any IPRs related to this d= raft.

 

Best regards,

Yali=

 

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On= Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 1:57 PM
To: idr@ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] IPR Call and WG Adoption for draft-qin-idr-sr-policy-= ifit-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

 

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-qin-= idr-sr-policy-ifit-04.txt (11/2/2020 to 11/16/2020).

 

The draft can be accessed at:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhu-idr-bgp-= ls-path-mtu/

 

The authors should provide IPR statements by 11/5/20= 20 so the IDR WG can consider the IPR status in their

decision.

 

This draft adds the IFIT sub-TLV to the BGP Tunnel E= ncaps attribute for the SR policy tunnel type. This sub-TLV is only valid f= or SR Policy tunnel types.  Within the IFIT  sub-TLV value field,= 5 sub-TLVs may be included (4 for IOAM and 1 for Enhanced Alternate Marking).   

 

The IDR co-chairs thank the authors for their patien= ce.  The WG adoption call for this draft has been delayed by the proce= ss of switching shepherds for BGP Tunnel Encaps draft.  Many BESS and = IDR drafts currently refer to the BGP tunnel encapsulation drafts.

 

In your review of this draft, please differentiate b= etween the following:

·        Support/rejection of In-situ Flow Telemetry = (IFIT) as a IP routing technology,

·        Support/rejection of alternate marking as a = IP routing technology,  

·        Support/rejection of adding new sub-TLVS for= SR Policy tunnel type of BGP Tunnel Encap Attribute, and   =

·        Specific issues with the descriptions of the= se features in the draft.

 

Cheers, Susan Hares

 

 

 

--_000_1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F405079AF8dggeml524mbxchi_--