Re: [Idr] Adoption: draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03.txt and draft-li-sr-policy-path-segment-01.txt - 1 week extension [10/14 to 10/21/2019]

Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com> Tue, 15 October 2019 08:30 UTC

Return-Path: <xiejingrong@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 CD9001200B1; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 01:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 ocIi21G6U-Q8; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 01:30:20 -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 324051200A4; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 01:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 8505A7D964356136F415; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 09:30:18 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.44) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 09:30:17 +0100
Received: from NKGEML514-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::40a8:f0d:c0f3:2ca5]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 16:30:09 +0800
From: Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org>, 'SPRING WG List' <spring@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] Adoption: draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03.txt and draft-li-sr-policy-path-segment-01.txt - 1 week extension [10/14 to 10/21/2019]
Thread-Index: AdWCuk3YU0jOn/ygQ1+t1TuQqTQ3YAAdvLfQ
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 08:30:09 +0000
Message-ID: <16253F7987E4F346823E305D08F9115AABA155B9@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <00f901d582ba$f474a230$dd5de690$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <00f901d582ba$f474a230$dd5de690$@ndzh.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.217.214]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_16253F7987E4F346823E305D08F9115AABA155B9nkgeml514mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ymlftgbm3DCXhC1-5uP7eiJSt4E>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption: draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03.txt and draft-li-sr-policy-path-segment-01.txt - 1 week extension [10/14 to 10/21/2019]
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, 15 Oct 2019 08:30:23 -0000

Hi

I support adoption of the two drafts.
Path Segment is a simple and useful identifier of a Path in SR-MPLS technology, and the use of BGP-SRPolicy and BGP-LS for the management of Path Segment is proper to me.


1)      Should this SR Policy technology be included in BGP for SR-MPLS
Yes.


2)      Is this technology a good way to implement the required Features in BGP?
Yes it is a good way to implement the required features based on the existing mechanism/addr-family.


3)      Is this technology ready for adoption?
Yes I think so.


4)      Do you have any concerns about adopting this technology?
No.


Thanks
Jingrong

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 2:13 AM
To: 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org>rg>; 'SPRING WG List' <spring@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption: draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03.txt and draft-li-sr-policy-path-segment-01.txt - 1 week extension [10/14 to 10/21/2019]

Greetings IDR and Spring WG

The WG Adoption for the two IDR drafts related to IDR received a level support below the threshold to accept this draft into the IDR WG.  There were no objection, but there was simply a low level of response.

This 1 week extension to the Adoption call is to let the members of both the IDR and SPRING WG comment on whether these drafts have matured enough to be IDR WG drafts.  On 10/21/2019, the IDR chairs will make a determination of whether either of these two drafts have enough support to be accepted.

Thank you,  Susan  Hares
IDR co-chair

From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 12:35 PM
To: 'idr wg'
Subject: [Idr] Adoption: draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03.txt and draft-li-sr-policy-path-segment-01.txt [9/17 to 10/1/2019]

This begins a 2 week WG Adoption call two related drafts [9/17 to 10/1/2019]

*         draft-li-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03.txt and

*         draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-01.txt.

You can access these two drafts at the following location:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment/

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-segment/

The authors have pointed out that the adoption of this
draft since the following  SR-MPLS Path Segment draft has been adopted:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-00

Please consider the following questions in your responses?


1)      Should this SR Policy technology be included in BGP for SR-MPLS



Spring has adopted the draft, but IDR can provide feedback

to spring about putting this technology in BGP.


2)      Is this technology a good way to implement the required

Features in BGP?



3)      Is this technology ready for adoption?



4)      Do you have any concerns about adopting this technology?



Cheers, Susan Hares