Re: [Idr] IPR call and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> Tue, 03 November 2020 08:44 UTC

Return-Path: <zhoutianran@huawei.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 E9FD03A153B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 00:44:33 -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 hCt9LEhjFd2V for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 00:44:32 -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 03BE63A1539 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 00:44:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml747-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id A9CE82C9FFFDDB7AA780 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 08:44:30 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from nkgeml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.153) by lhreml747-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.197) 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 08:44:30 +0000
Received: from nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.157) by nkgeml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.153) 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 16:44:27 +0800
Received: from nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.157]) by nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.157]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 16:44:27 +0800
From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "'Acee Lindem (acee)'" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] IPR call and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)
Thread-Index: AdawxZFiqE7+Vp6ETxeuJxQP7/0gpQAKEOIAAAEaOgAAMsYdwA==
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 08:44:27 +0000
Message-ID: <170e41c89c0a4a81b05f9e063bbeb931@huawei.com>
References: <045d01d6b0c7$c5eb4900$51c1db00$@ndzh.com> <B27A2389-0994-44FC-B7D1-184C596FFCE6@cisco.com> <07a301d6b135$4cf97c10$e6ec7430$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <07a301d6b135$4cf97c10$e6ec7430$@ndzh.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.243.128]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_170e41c89c0a4a81b05f9e063bbeb931huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/vdmnZNrekao6yPOdDReRIRgSjYM>
Subject: Re: [Idr] IPR call and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-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 <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: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 08:44:34 -0000

Hi Authors,

I have several comments on this draft:

1. In the introduction:
I believe “Segment Identifier (SID) is often used as a shorter reference for "SRv6 Segment". ”  is not correct.

2. In section 3.1:
The O-bit has dependency on I-D.ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam. IMO, this cannot pass the LC before ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam.
And is there any other flag?

3. There are several use of “A SRv6 SID” in the draft. I think it should be “An SRv6 SID”.

4. In section 8:
You introduced the SID Structure TLV only with the format. It seems interesting.
I would like to see more text on this. For example, what’s the usage, how to deal with it, what’s the fault process.

Thanks,
Tianran


From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 12:29 AM
To: 'Acee Lindem (acee)' <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>rg>; idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] IPR call and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

Acee:

Thank you  for noting that the URL is incorrect.   The correct URL is at:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext/

Sue


From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 7:58 AM
To: Susan Hares; idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] IPR call and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

Hi Sue, IDR WG,
I support publication of the document. Note that the URL below is for the flex-algo BGP-LS draft.
Thanks,
Acee

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>>
Date: Sunday, November 1, 2020 at 10:26 PM
To: IDR List <idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>>
Subject: [Idr] IPR call and WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1/2020 to 11/16/2020)

This begins an IPR call and a 2 week WG LC for
draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-04.txt (11/1 to 11/16/2020)

You can access the draft at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo/

This draft focus on the BGP-LS support for SRv6.
Spring has proposed the SRv6 support in RFC8402
(see section 3.1.3 for mechanisms and section 8.2 for
Security considerations).

There are two implementations: Cisco and GoBGP
You can see the implementation report at:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext%20implementations

In your responses, please consider the following questions:
a) Is the SRv6 technology ready for deployment or
are there known issues?

b) Will SRv6 provide valuable support for
deployments of BGP-LS in support of source routing
(aka spring)?

c) Is this draft ready for publication?

If you know of additional implementations, please send
a note to the idr chairs with the information or
respond to this email.

Cheers, Susan Hares