Return-Path: 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 To: Susan Hares , 'idr wg' , 'SPRING WG List' 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: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 08:30:23 -0000 --_000_16253F7987E4F346823E305D08F9115AABA155B9nkgeml514mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi I support adoption of the two drafts. Path Segment is a simple and useful identifier of a Path in SR-MPLS technol= ogy, and the use of BGP-SRPolicy and BGP-LS for the management of Path Segm= ent 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 existi= ng 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' ; 'SPRING WG List' 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 supp= ort below the threshold to accept this draft into the IDR WG. There were n= o 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 th= e 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 --_000_16253F7987E4F346823E305D08F9115AABA155B9nkgeml514mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi

 

I support adoption of the two drafts.

Path Segment is a simple and useful identifier of a Path in SR-MP= LS technology, and the use of BGP-SRPolicy and BGP-LS for the management of= Path Segment is proper to me.

 

1) &nbs= p;    Should this SR Policy t= echnology be included in BGP for SR-MPLS

Yes.

 

2) &nbs= p;    Is this technology a go= od way to implement the required Features in BGP?

Yes it is a good way to impleme= nt the required features based on the existing mechanism/addr-family.<= /o:p>

 

3) &nbs= p;    Is this technology read= y for adoption?

Yes I think so.

 

4) &nbs= p;    Do you have any concern= s 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>; 'SPRING WG List' <spring@ietf.= org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption: draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segm= ent-03.txt and draft-li-sr-policy-path-segment-01.txt - 1 week extension [1= 0/14 to 10/21/2019]

 

Greetin= gs IDR and Spring WG

&n= bsp;

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

&n= bsp;

This 1 = week extension to the Adoption call is to let the members of both the IDR a= nd 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 enoug= h support to be accepted.

&n= bsp;

Thank y= ou,  Susan  Hares

IDR co-= chair

&n= bsp;

From: Id= r [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]<= /o:p>

 

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

·         draft-li-bgp-ls-sr-poli= cy-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://datatrack= er.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment/<= /span>

 

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

 

The authors have pointed out th= at 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 q= uestions in your responses?

 

1) &nbs= p;    Should this SR Policy t= echnology be included in BGP for SR-MPLS

 =

Spring has adopted the d= raft, but IDR can provide feedback

to spring about putting = this technology in BGP.

 

2) &nbs= p;    Is this technology a go= od way to implement the required

Features in BGP?

 =

3) &nbs= p;    Is this technology read= y for adoption?

 =

4) &nbs= p;    Do you have any concern= s about adopting this technology?

 =

 

Cheers, Susan Hares =

--_000_16253F7987E4F346823E305D08F9115AABA155B9nkgeml514mbxchi_--