Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn

Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> Sun, 07 February 2021 13:17 UTC

Return-Path: <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C774A3A0D78; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 05:17:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 4tauKN2NHGJn; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 05:17:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E20713A0D76; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 05:17:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml736-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.226]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4DYV1X2bmZz67lWX; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 21:12:16 +0800 (CST)
Received: from nkgeml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.153) by fraeml736-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 14:17:04 +0100
Received: from nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.157) by nkgeml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 21:17:02 +0800
Received: from nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.157]) by nkgeml707-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.157]) with mapi id 15.01.2106.006; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 21:17:02 +0800
From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
To: peng.shaofu <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>, james.n.guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>
CC: spring <spring@ietf.org>, spring-chairs <spring-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn
Thread-Index: Adb0oenKnA4X5iOERUKE5ULWWQiYwAIH8lwAACR0s6U=
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2021 13:17:02 +0000
Message-ID: <401a54172e714ae6b6580a96133d164b@huawei.com>
References: MN2PR13MB42061AD1E295598F1F2726BDD2BB9@MN2PR13MB4206.namprd13.prod.outlook.com, <202102071153129945093@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <202102071153129945093@zte.com.cn>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_401a54172e714ae6b6580a96133d164bhuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/L693vxuMV0sSRULJLC5ORz0FngI>
Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2021 13:17:12 -0000

"Thus, from a purely technical point of view, I see no reason for this document to be adopted.”


Could you please explain the technical point why this document can’t be adopted?

IMO, all your statements just show support and consensus on the technology.

Tianran


________________________________

Sent from WeLink
发件人: peng.shaofu<peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn<mailto:peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>>
收件人: james.n.guichard<james.n.guichard@futurewei.com<mailto:james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>>
抄送: spring<spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>;spring-chairs<spring-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:spring-chairs@ietf.org>>
主题: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn
时间: 2021-02-07 11:53:59



Hi WG/authors,


I have to point out that the VTN-ID in draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn is actually the AII in draft-peng-teas-network-slicing, just a new name. That can be seen from the evolution of the historical versions of the these two drafts.


I draw your attention to draft draft-peng-teas-network-slicing which analyzes in detail the reasons for the introduction of slice identifier (AII) in the network, and maintains the resource partition of each slice and the allocation of SID per AII in the network. All this happened before draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn.


In addition, the idea that multiple slices share the same virtual topology (such as flex-algo) is also copied from draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet, which can significantly reduce the state in the network, especially without maintaining SPT per slice, which means that multiple SIDs per slice can share the forwarding action of SPT per VN and at the same time can do resource guarantee by SID per slice (or slice-id in packet).


Thus, from a purely technical point of view, I see no reason for this document to be adopted.


Regards,

PSF




原始邮件
发件人:JamesGuichard
收件人:spring@ietf.org;
抄送人:spring-chairs@ietf.org;
日 期 :2021年01月27日 19:47
主 题 :[spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Dear WG:

This message starts a 2 week WG adoption call for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn/ ending February 10th 2021.

After review of the document please indicate support (or not) for WG adoption to the mailing list and if you are willing to work on the document, please state this explicitly. This gives the chairs an indication of the energy level of people in the working group willing to work on this document. Please also provide comments/reasons for your support (or lack thereof) as this is a stronger way to indicate your (non) support as this is not a vote.

Thanks!

Jim, Bruno & Joel