IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Mail regarding draft-hu-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 15 January 2020 21:32 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD778120992; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 13:32:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Rd6MHtDkX4ti; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 13:32:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102e.google.com (mail-pj1-x102e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1AD0120A41; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 13:32:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102e.google.com with SMTP id d5so497767pjz.5; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 13:32:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version; bh=xD7SDNDTiYhUhVWFh88xAm0gZSM0X3mobKH22/ccYvs=; b=ZLd3X3K90MSW1blTq5iOAxEk6WBcaD6nWbXL3qkBJjTW7Jak8CinkREHq1wY4sB2Oq ZWLzXjEsR6MuwDrykD8FFq8SHbw/BRmi+qjEhliWFq1XfeU3b3j6agVS6wowC4buRI0x DmmqTrTy9JmSg/XtzbdEghxLCMsO81VnrRAaBNNTh+o30WzbeKKi655beRH7zEnyDOY2 0NfzIyJHQUwoXUMmPcOGoDfVRkV5GN3eVTqXbo68fsJwBEJku8e/xcEQg3GilYKyvTGd PnGcOCblUl0oUTpLM+HHEw3S6dGSWWwUM049I/pxeHCis1UxCaHXcnSSU/+UnwM4buTr vv8A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version; bh=xD7SDNDTiYhUhVWFh88xAm0gZSM0X3mobKH22/ccYvs=; b=Qzy5UNrIlvdAGtUFBHeBzPahjPA49zdk7d8opwXrWVeOxWSvcXUycYQ+LB5fytOC9C u7TPd1plPP1pQbqmfarKNLZz/9yXWwADODIPotTw9PjPHQX77erSzJs0gU4bKLrtGDSv ZXB8IrhzlnEaUKm+41YdHKiqnUfPl7dTKjkuml7ldkHt1l0BD74AAkj9GbCefr1/aQNd KySGVCsSKYXIE/0oS7lBJibscJe268p+94eOhPfahG3+U8YrNLt8RSaRt67PSMh+Dhnm 14Ipk86TH6GsP8yg18fjkbgVrF1PmvgQTjZgb269s/PIr8Ldpqt3AEBjIOpawhPsi+3F 3PXg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVKLeX7zB88WY+UkS2yd1Rm7b8OuYGrCkBrRdN9jpguZHrVABEs 85S87eqnS8PofgtxPsKnli0lzWwf
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwYgAIiNQwy4UhI3qBL6eoV/94tdIWl43mrVKQqGxYfo0RWIlIZpIoSDkQ9F/g4seyT7b2qMQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8bc3:: with SMTP id r3mr21910832plo.220.1579123938798; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 13:32:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.42] ([50.235.77.202]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x22sm22694106pgc.2.2020.01.15.13.32.17 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 15 Jan 2020 13:32:18 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 13:32:08 -0800
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "draft-hu-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection@ietf.org" <draft-hu-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, Yimin Shen <yshen=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Message-ID: <83383a7c-44be-425a-949e-c2030759c93f@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <AE1BCB69-6913-46B9-9250-1AC829665B7F@contoso.com>
References: <AE1BCB69-6913-46B9-9250-1AC829665B7F@contoso.com>
Subject: Re: Mail regarding draft-hu-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection
X-Readdle-Message-ID: 83383a7c-44be-425a-949e-c2030759c93f@Spark
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="5e1f84e1_44b3fa61_496"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/pTQ91NVXg5yqY_8Efgvwgianvmk>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 21:32:22 -0000

Yimin,

Thank you for bringing this up!
Authors - please do address Yimin’s comments.

Cheers,
Jeff
On Jan 15, 2020, 11:23 AM -0800, Yimin Shen <yshen=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, wrote:
> Hi authors,
>
> I’d like to suggest this draft to reference RFC 8679.
>
> In particular, RFC 8679 as a generic EP framework with a lot of general discussions (see the points below), which are applicable to both MPLS and IPv6 data plane, and all types of transport tunnels. However, this draft seems to have almost no consideration or discussion on these topics. I don’t think the draft needs to repeat these discussions, but I suggest to add a section(s) to discuss these points generally by referencing RFC 8679.
>
>
> • general scope and requirements
> • transport layer failure/protection vs. service layer failure/protection
> • applicability
> • failure detection mechanisms
> • egress node protection
> • egress link protection
> • relationship between EP and global repair
> • co-existing of different types of transport tunnels and bypass tunnels
> • security
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- Yimin Shen
> Juniper Networks
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email