Re: [spring] draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming

"Chengli (Cheng Li)" <chengli13@huawei.com> Wed, 27 February 2019 08:31 UTC

Return-Path: <chengli13@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 8F73C130E8A for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 00:31:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 tnNfvhH617yN for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 00:31:39 -0800 (PST)
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 269E7130E9F for <spring@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 00:31:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 03ED7D5D2EC8EAE7BF48 for <spring@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:31:37 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.50) by LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:31:36 +0000
Received: from DGGEML529-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.187]) by dggeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.3.17.50]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:31:23 +0800
From: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <chengli13@huawei.com>
To: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" <pcamaril@cisco.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
CC: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming
Thread-Index: AQHUxEMYTLF4iyOeokW8cF68mNwMJqXzWM3w
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:31:23 +0000
Message-ID: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB01AEDC89@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <808167FE-26AA-4262-A283-73554B7192A2@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <808167FE-26AA-4262-A283-73554B7192A2@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.130.185.75]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB01AEDC89dggeml529mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/eontpsVJYPHj1KLJoJ9KlqwnJZE>
Subject: Re: [spring] draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming
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: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:31:41 -0000

Support.  The content of these drafts has been stable for a while, I think they are ready to progress.

I have some comments regarding to PSP, USP and USD flavors in draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming-07.

1:            What is the motivation for introducing the USD flavor?  With USD, then the END, END.T and END.X can be the last SID?

2:            In section-4.1<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming-06#section-4.1> , 4.2 and 4.3, the document says that End, End.X, End.T can not be the last SID of SID list.

                But in section-4.21.2<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming-06#section-4.21.2>, the End, End.X, and End.T can be the last SID when there is another SRH following.

                Even, in that case, the last SID of the SID list MUST be SID of End, End.X, and End.T, correct?

                If End, End.X, End.T can not be the last SID of SID list, then USP of End, End.X, End.T can not work.

So I think the text should be: End, End.X, and End.T SID can be the last SID if (1) it has USD flavor or (2) it has USP flavor while there is another SRH following it.

Thanks,
Cheng

From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 4:56 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming

Dear Spring,

We have submitted a new revision of draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming. There are several minor updates to the document, mainly addressing ICMP and having better alignment with SRH draft. Also, based on WG feedback, we have split the document moving the illustrations into a new informational draft.
As always, any feedback or question is more than welcome.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-net-pgm-illustration/

We believe that the content of both drafts is mature and has been stable since the first revision in March 2017. We are tracking several opensource and vendor proprietary implementations. Some of these have actually participated in a public interop more than a year ago.
For these reasons we believe that both documents are ready to progress and be adopted by the working group.

Thanks,
Pablo (on behalf of authors&contributors)