Re: [spring] WGLC for

Weiqiang Cheng <> Mon, 16 August 2021 02:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFEC23A1220; Sun, 15 Aug 2021 19:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rdP3aFHq8Wwt; Sun, 15 Aug 2021 19:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF2733A1223; Sun, 15 Aug 2021 19:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown[]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app11-12011 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2eeb6119ce4f4ba-9d604; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:32:47 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2eeb6119ce4f4ba-9d604
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from cmcc (unknown[]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvr07-12007 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee76119ce4dacc-93b5a; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:32:46 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee76119ce4dacc-93b5a
From: "Weiqiang Cheng" <>
To: "'Dhruv Dhody'" <>, "'James Guichard'" <>
Cc: <>, <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:32:46 +0800
Message-ID: <053b01d79246$fff5e4f0$ffe1aed0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_053C_01D7928A.0E1924F0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdeO21LeKdV3xhtcQdqeVj8iKnPjxAAcSHEw
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC for
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 02:33:07 -0000

Hi Dhruv,

Thanks a lot.

Comments are never late. 

Responses are in-line



Weiqiang Cheng



发件人: spring [] 代表 Dhruv Dhody
发送时间: 2021年8月12日 01:56
收件人: James Guichard
主题: Re: [spring] WGLC for



I support the WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment. Please find my “late” comments. Hope they are still useful.


*	Section 2

*	The below text requires some more explanation

The Path Segment may be used to identify an SR-MPLS Policy, its Candidate-Path (CP), or a SID List (SL)

*	The document says Path Segment “uniquely identify an SR path”, so how does that apply to SR policy/CP (which can have multiple paths) needs to be explicit.

[Weiqiang] The term of “SR path” used in this document is a general term that can be used to describe a SR policy, a Candidate-Path, or a SID List. So how about updating the 2nd paragraph with the following text:

“The term of SR path used in this document is a general term that can be used to describe a SR Policy, a Candidate-Path (CP), or a SID List (SL) [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]. Therefore, the Path Segment may be used to identify an SR Policy, its CP, or a SL terminating on an egress node depending on the use-case.”

*	Section 2

*	This text

Normally, the intermediate nodes will not see the Path Segment label
and do not know how to process it. A Path Segment presenting to an
intermediate node is an error condition.

*	Path segment is just another label with no special marking, and since it is from the egress label space it is possible that the same label is used by the transit node for some other purpose. Not sure about “do not know how to process it”, is there a better way to frame this?

[Weiqiang] Maybe the simplest way to fix it is just to remove the “do not know how to process it” text, for example as below:

“Normally, the intermediate nodes will not see the Path Segment label. A Path Segment presenting to an intermediate node is an error condition.”

*	Section 8

*	This needs to be expanded. The path segment does carry a label in the packet that can be used to identify the flows that are using a particular path. The path segment in the control plane could also be exploited for incorrect correlation between paths.


Sure, we will try to expand it a bit.

And if there is some suggestion text, that will be great.


*	Add references in the terminology section 1.2
*	Add references for SRLB/SRGB [RFC8402]
*	Section 2

*	s/SR-MPLS Policy/SR Policy/

*	Section 3

*	s/Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP)/Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)/

*	Section 5

*	s/[I-D.gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr]/[I-D.gandhi-mpls-ioam]
*	s/[I-D.gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm]/[I-D.ietf-spring-stamp-srpm]

[Weiqiang] Will fix the above nits in the revision.





On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:19 PM James Guichard <> wrote:

Dear WG:


This email starts a 2 week Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment [1].


Please read this document if you haven’t read the most recent version and send your comments to the SPRING WG list no later than July 21st 2021. 


If you are raising a point which you expect will be specifically debated on the mailing list, consider using a specific email/thread for this point.


Lastly, if you are an author or contributor please response to indicate whether you know of any undisclosed IPR related to this document. 




Jim, Joel & Bruno







spring mailing list