Hi Qin, That would be for TB1, TB2 and TB3 as well. Agree? I will add a RFC editor remark as suggest. Makes sense. Thanks a lot.
Best wishes Thomas From: Qin Wu <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 9:12 AM To: Graf Thomas, INI-NET-TCZ-ZH1 <[email protected]>; Tianran Zhou <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: RE: WG Last call for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-01 发件人: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] 发送时间: 2021年6月15日 12:31 收件人: Qin Wu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Tianran Zhou <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 主题: RE: WG Last call for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-01 Hi Qin, Thanks for the feedback. I will include the comments in the next version. Regarding early IANA allocation. This has been already requested previously on the list. The chairs suggested to do a last call and see wherever we could go directly or not. Regarding Ø Suggest to add a note to RFC Editor on code point TBD4 allocation and update. I did not understand exactly. Could you describe it more detailed. [Qin Wu] I don’t know which value will be allocated for BGP Segment Routing Prefix-SID in the section 3 ,but I think You need to remind RFC Editor to replace TBD4 in section 4 with the real value allocated by IANA. Make sense? Best wishes Thomas From: OPSAWG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Qin Wu Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 12:32 PM To: Tianran Zhou <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG Last call for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-01 Support, a few comments for clarity: General comment: 1.Have we considered to request early IANA allocation? 2. Section 2 s/ dynamic BGP labels according to RFC8277 [RFC8277]/ dynamic BGP labels [RFC8277] s/ BGP Prefix-SID according to RFC8669 [RFC8669]/ BGP Prefix-SID [RFC8669] s/ in context of Seamless MPLS SR [I-D.hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr]/ in context of Seamless MPLS SR (see section 4.6 of [I-D.hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr]) s/ as described in RFC8661 [RFC8661]./ as described in [RFC8661] Appendix A. 3. Section 4: Suggest to add a note to RFC Editor on code point TBD4 allocation and update. -Qin 发件人: OPSAWG [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Tianran Zhou 发送时间: 2021年6月8日 8:56 收件人: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 主题: [OPSAWG] WG Last call for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-01 Hi WG, The following draft is mainly to request some IPFIX IE allocations. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type/<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type%2F&data=04%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Ccaddd0835230458fafff08d92fcce857%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C0%7C0%7C637593379376423851%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=3ex9%2BQzqwgkrfG%2BGz80LDMIx2fPgkB3mYT4YVwRoX2w%3D&reserved=0> We agreed to fast track this draft and move forward. Now the authors think it’s stable. And we got IE expert reviewed. This mail we start a two weeks WG last call, before June21. Please reply your comments on this. Thanks, Tianran
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
