IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06

"Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com> Tue, 09 June 2020 12:32 UTC

Return-Path: <c.l@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DE443A085C for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 05:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 9I2_R6R2i2I6 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 05:32:44 -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 627703A085A for <pce@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 05:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml736-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 4BE2820DE4B77757683C; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 13:32:41 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml736-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.87) by lhreml736-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.87) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 13:32:41 +0100
Received: from DGGEML424-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.41) by lhreml736-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.87) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 13:32:40 +0100
Received: from DGGEML509-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.160]) by dggeml424-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 20:32:34 +0800
From: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com>
To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06
Thread-Index: AQHWPJ/cDr/BPval10GhULHdR0l30qjOBUgQ
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 12:32:33 +0000
Message-ID: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02A6FD58@dggeml509-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <CAB75xn7p9jntgHJpdCVvUooZOMU_WsJfDAQ08hdkT6L6vMfSAQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB75xn7p9jntgHJpdCVvUooZOMU_WsJfDAQ08hdkT6L6vMfSAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.203.229]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/CR_XBIqQISY8DBp2dlSruhP8THo>
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 12:32:46 -0000

Support with some comments.

SR policy is  very important for Segment Routing. Adding an Association object to support SR policy is a very simple extension, therefore I support this adoption.

Comments:

The SR policy name can be configured via PCEP and BGP or other ways, do we need to make sure the name of the same SR policy is identical?

IMHO, the text of how to handle SR policy name conflictions between protocols should be added.

Thanks,
Cheng





-----Original Message-----
From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2020 3:45 PM
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06

Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-06.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp/06/

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons
- Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.

This adoption poll will end on 22nd June 2020.

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email