IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] WG adoption for draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-05.txt (10/20/2023 to 11/6/2023)

Yisong Liu <liuyisong@chinamobile.com> Thu, 26 October 2023 06:19 UTC

Return-Path: <liuyisong@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 9B821C151989 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 23:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.603
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.001, HDRS_MISSP=0.001, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 YI54UzfsC1mk for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 23:19:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmccmta1.chinamobile.com (cmccmta1.chinamobile.com [221.176.66.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6653FC14CE3B for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 23:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.121.13]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app02-12002 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee2653a04f24f1-d2dd2; Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:19:30 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee2653a04f24f1-d2dd2
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from CMCC-PC (unknown[10.2.147.226]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvr07-12007 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee7653a04f0da2-b1002; Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:19:30 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee7653a04f0da2-b1002
MIME-Version: 1.0
x-PcFlag: b1fa6591-3d85-4a5f-b875-adab4cdeb7d2_5_142095
X-Mailer: PC_RICHMAIL 2.9.31
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:19:30 +0800
From: Yisong Liu <liuyisong@chinamobile.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, idr <idr@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20231026141930869553695@chinamobile.com>
Content-Type: multipart/Alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart869553695_=----"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vQ_7qt6PWCngStHkt0FxGAneMHQ>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption for draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-05.txt (10/20/2023 to 11/6/2023)
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: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 06:19:53 -0000


Hi WG,




 

I have reviewed this draft and I support the adoption. 

Additionally, I believe it would be beneficial to include a simple identifier for segment lists. 

  

 Here are my replies: 

 1.         

 2.  1.Should we merge draft-zhang-idr-sr-policy-metric-05 and drft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id? 

 3.       
  No, I think the two drafts have completely different purposes and it is recommended  to move forward separately. 

 4.         

 5.  2.Is there value in adding a segment list identifier?
  

        Yes, I think we actually need this ID. 

 6.         

 7.  3. Is there any technical problem with the description and procedures for handling the segment list identifier?
     

         No, I think there is no problem.


 

Best Regards

Yisong 

  

 

 

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
 Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2023 2:08 AM
 To: idr@ietf.org
 Subject: [Idr] WG adoption for draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-05.txt (10/20/2023 to 11/6/2023)   

  

This begins a 2-week WG Adoption poll for draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-05.txt 

(10/20/2023 to 11/6/2023)  

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id/ 

  

The authors should respond to this email with an email indicating whether they know of any IPR related to this draft.  

  

This draft proposes a change to the   

Tunnel Encaps Attribute for the SR Policy Tunnel type  

in the segment list.  The change is to add  

a segment list identifier:  

  

         Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23) 

            Tunnel Type: SR Policy 

                Binding SID 

                SRv6 Binding SID 

                Preference 

                Priority 

                Policy Name 

                Policy Candidate Path Name 

                Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP) 

                Segment List 

                    Weight 

                    Segment List Identifier 

                    Segment 

                    Segment 

      

Please note that draft-zhang-idr-sr-policy-metric-05.txt  

Proposes adding a metric value to the segment list.  

  

In your comments on adoption, please consider: 

1.       Should we merge draft-zhang-idr-sr-policy-metric-05 

And drft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id?  

2.       Is there value in adding a segment list identifier?  

3.       Is there any technical problem with the description and the procedures for handling the segment list identifier?  

  

Cheerily, Sue Hares

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email