[Idr] 答复: WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd-05.txt (7/15 to 7/29/2020)

Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com> Fri, 24 July 2020 08:04 UTC

Return-Path: <lizhenbin@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 5B21D3A0B9A for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 01:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
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 4qxL1PSc71el for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 01:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
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 54EAA3A0B82 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 01:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml715-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id E3DB4D2D6E81206A44F0 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:04:25 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.66) by lhreml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:04:25 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM423-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.40) by lhreml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:04:25 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM532-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.215]) by dggemm423-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.198.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 16:04:18 +0800
From: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd-05.txt (7/15 to 7/29/2020)
Thread-Index: AdZaqFM+IHByNV2FRBK1MLVtR2zN/AG5sqdY
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 08:04:17 +0000
Message-ID: <5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D937E6B9C@DGGEMM532-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <003701d65aa9$689a64d0$39cf2e70$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <003701d65aa9$689a64d0$39cf2e70$@ndzh.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.45.220.21]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5A5B4DE12C0DAC44AF501CD9A2B01A8D937E6B9CDGGEMM532MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/whhRxFisYXGeUM989Q0UVXHPQIo>
Subject: [Idr] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIFdHIExDIG9uIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtaWRyLXJw?= =?gb2312?b?ZC0wNS50eHQgICg3LzE1IHRvIDcvMjkvMjAyMCk=?=
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: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 08:04:29 -0000

Hi All,

I support the WG LC of the drafts. My reply on the question list is as follows:

1) Do you feel this draft has an solution that is acceptable
   With the IPR as a WG RFC?
[Robin] Yes

2) Do you feel this draft is ready to publish?
[Robin] Yes

3) Do you know of implementations of this draft?
[Robin] Yes. There are at least 2 implementations.

4) Do you know of deployments of this draft?
If so, is this feature useful in the deployments.
[Robin] Yes. There are multiple deployments. It is very useful to steer traffic through the distribution of the routing policy.
Owing to the change of traffic pattern caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, there are more deployments requirements of
the solution.

5) Do you feel that Wide Communities is ready for
Publication?
[Robin] Yes. It provides a very useful way to convey the route policy information. We always debate if Netconf/YANG or BGP
is appropriate on many topics. BGP Wide Communities and BGP SR Policy are the good examples in practice for better 3-rd party
interworking and incremental deployment.



Best Regards,

Zhenbin (Robin)









________________________________
发件人: Idr [idr-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Susan Hares [shares@ndzh.com]
发送时间: 2020年7月15日 21:11
收件人: idr@ietf.org
主题: [Idr] WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd-05.txt (7/15 to 7/29/2020)

This begins a 2 week WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-rpd
from 7/15 to 7/29/2020.  You can obtain this draft at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rpd/

This draft defines a new AFI/SAFI and new atoms
for the Wide Communities.  This WG LC has been delayed
as I waited for a resubmission of the Wide Communities draft.
I had hoped to do these 2 WG LC in parallel.

I’ve not received the Wide Communities draft, but we will
start this WGLC to provide feedback to the authors.
We may have to run a short follow-up to this WG LC
If there are changes to the Wide Communities draft during
Its WG LC.

There is an IPR statement on this draft.

In your responses please answer the following questions:

1) Do you feel this draft has an solution that is acceptable
   With the IPR as a WG RFC?

2) Do you feel this draft is ready to publish?

3) Do you know of implementations of this draft?

4) Do you know of deployments of this draft?
If so, is this feature useful in the deploy ments.

5) Do you feel that Wide Communities is ready for
Publication?

Cheerily, Susan Hares