Re: [Idr] Request comments on draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-05
chen.ran@zte.com.cn Wed, 06 March 2024 02:08 UTC
Return-Path: <chen.ran@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 39618C151075 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 18:08:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 FTjXaSkUlujJ for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 18:08:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF7ADC14EB19 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 18:08:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.133]) (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 4TqG7d1xDCz4xPYf; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 10:08:45 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njy2app08.zte.com.cn ([10.40.13.206]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 42628O0R064989; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 10:08:24 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from chen.ran@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njb2app05[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Wed, 6 Mar 2024 10:08:25 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2024 10:08:25 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afd65e7d0194e8-91c6d
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202403061008257698536@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <862ef02234a144ccb7e7fe99c154fe57@h3c.com>
References: 862ef02234a144ccb7e7fe99c154fe57@h3c.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
To: linchangwang.04414@h3c.com
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 42628O0R064989
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 65E7D02D.002/4TqG7d1xDCz4xPYf
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/qgRq_yAeeL5MQZxYqzO-CMmKBe4>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Request comments on draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-05
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 06 Mar 2024 02:08:53 -0000
Hi Changwang， Thanks for your valuable comments. Please see inline... Best Regards, Ran Original From: linchangwang <linchangwang.04414@h3c.com> To: 陈然00080434;idr@ietf.org <idr@ietf.org>; Date: 2024年03月05日 21:09 Subject: Re: [Idr] Request comments on draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-05 Hi Ran I have reviewed this draft and have the following comments: 1. The definition of NRP TLV is incorrect. As defined in RFC9552, the type and length of the TLV should be two bytes, not one byte. It is necessary to redefine the entire NRP TLV. [Ran] Yes, will update it. Thanks 2. [RFC7752] has been deprecated, please update the reference to RFC9552. [Ran] Yes, will update it. Thanks 3. Regarding the "Scalability Considerations" section: It differs from the description in draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-nrp-00. In draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-nrp-00, it states that as the number of NRP increases, the number of SR Policies would also increase accordingly. Therefore, the number of SR Policies reported on BGP-LS would also increase. It is suggested that the description be consistent with this. [Ran] Sure, will discuss with Jie, and make the two draft consistent. Thanks. Thanks, Changwang 发件人: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> 代表 chen.ran@zte.com.cn 发送时间: 2024年3月5日 9:20 收件人: idr@ietf.org 主题: [Idr] Request comments on draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-05 Hi WG, We have updated this draft, the link is https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp/, which defines a new TLV which enable the headend to report the configuration and the states of SR policies carrying NRP information by using BGP-LS. In this version, we add the Security Considerations. Any comments are welcomed. Thank you! Best Regards, Ran ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 本邮件及其附件含有新华三集团的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出 的个人或群组。禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、 或散发）本邮件中的信息。如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本 邮件！ This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from New H3C, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!