[Isis-wg] 答复: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07

Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> Thu, 21 December 2017 02:40 UTC

Return-Path: <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCDBD12711D; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 18:40:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.23
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.23 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 GNDM6eKxF72X; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 18:40:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (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 9B11F12702E; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 18:40:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 7A4AE71B037B7; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 02:40:09 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.75) by lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.361.1; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 02:40:10 +0000
Received: from NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.57]) by nkgeml414-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 10:40:03 +0800
From: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant@cisco.com>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
CC: "isis-ads@ietf.org" <isis-ads@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07
Thread-Index: AQHTeW06jM1ACd6ZqkWd9nK7C4/M2KNLdv2AgACqwQCAAOxQ0A==
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 02:40:02 +0000
Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE304A6A21@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <87ind1pzn8.fsf@chopps.org> <3406a4622ee74862bd7be4477cc0bd5a@XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com> <3f896bcf14014858bbeff810854b627d@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <3f896bcf14014858bbeff810854b627d@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.184.181]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/uflEffijS38czkvoEFtvfdO2o5A>
Subject: [Isis-wg] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIFdHIExhc3QgQ2FsbCBmb3IgZHJhZnQtaWV0?= =?gb2312?b?Zi1pc2lzLXNlZ21lbnQtcm91dGluZy1tc2QtMDc=?=
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 02:40:16 -0000

Hi Les,

If I understand it correctly, the MSD concept was originated from (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11#page-7) as described below:

"The "Maximum SID Depth" (1
   octet) field (MSD) specifies the maximum number of SIDs (MPLS label
   stack depth in the context of this document) that a PCC is capable of
   imposing on a packet."

Before considering expanding the semantics of the MSD concept as defined in the above PCE-SR draft, how about first considering renaming the capability of imposing the maximum number of labels so as to eliminate possible confusions, e.g., Writable Label-stack Depth (WLD) as opposed to the Readable Label-stack Depth (RLD) as defined in (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc) and (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc) ?

Best regards,
Xiaohu

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> 发送时间: 2017年12月21日 4:02
> 收件人: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant); Christian Hopps; isis-wg@ietf.org
> 抄送: isis-ads@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org
> 主题: Re: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07
> 
> Ketan -
> 
> Thanx for the comments.
> I think we do want to allow MSD support for values other than imposition
> values. We will revise the text so we are not restricted to only imposition cases.
> 
>   Les
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 1:51 AM
> > To: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>rg>; isis-wg@ietf.org
> > Cc: isis-ads@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for
> > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I support this document and would like to ask the authors and WG to
> > consider if we can expand the scope of this draft to not just
> > "imposition" of the SID stack but also other similar limits related to other
> actions (e.g.
> > reading, processing, etc.). With Segment Routing, we are coming across
> > various actions that nodes need to do with the SID stack for different
> > purposes and IMHO it would be useful to extend the MSD ability to
> > cover those as they arise.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ketan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Isis-wg [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christian
> > Hopps
> > Sent: 20 December 2017 14:03
> > To: isis-wg@ietf.org
> > Cc: isis-ads@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd@ietf.org
> > Subject: [Isis-wg] WG Last Call for
> > draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-07
> >
> >
> > The authors have asked for and we are starting a WG Last Call on
> >
> >  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd/
> >
> > which will last an extended 4 weeks to allow for year-end PTO patterns.
> >
> > An IPR statement exists:
> >
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-is
> > is-
> > segment-routing-msd
> >
> > Authors please reply to the list indicating whether you are aware of
> > any
> > *new* IPR.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chris.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Isis-wg mailing list
> > Isis-wg@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> Isis-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg