Hi All,
I support the adoption as three WG documents.
draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-admin-flags defines an extension to the BGP SR Policy
that sets the administrative state of the candidate path or segment list,
facilitating the operation and maintenance of the SR Policy.
The latter two I-Ds address the same scenario but differ in that they are
extensions of BGP-TE and BGP-LS, respectively.
Thanks,
Quan
<Greetings:
<This is an adoption 3 week WG adoption call sent to IDR and Spring for the
following 3 drafts:
<1. draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-admin-flag-05.txt -
<2. draft-liu-idr-sr-segment-list-optimize-06.txt
<3. draft-ali-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-sl-opt-distribution-00.txt
<Both WGs must agree that these drafts are useful and appropriate.
<The authors of these three drafts should respond to this email with an IPR
Statement specifying the following:
<1) draft you are a co-author on,
<2) Whether you know of any IPR on that draft.
<Background for the WG and Spring.
< [I-D. draft-ietf-spring-srv6-policy-sid- list-opt] specifies procedures to
indicate whether the endpoint's node SID needs to be included or excluded when
installing the SRv6 Policy.
<1) draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-admin-flags specifies as Segment List
Administrative Flags as segment list SubTLV. Flags include:
<S- admin shutdown, B- backup ineligible, I-Ignore service route's Prefix SID,
D- drop upon invalid (section 8.2, RFC9256), and E - eligible.
<2)
draft-liu-idr-sr-segment-list-optimize<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dliu-2Didr-2Dsr-2Dsegment-2Dlist-2Doptimize_&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=rEoy_H4r-c4UNUr3jSF-7Q&m=RjntOQpE0PTOmyN9aktQ2Swdw2n9KkMaab5dO_bRoNPQbJdQYV5cBJEfNcJbuuOI&s=rwc-kio_SJHar0SdViNs5UMjP6RG_m8-s8v6at9IV5o&e=>
= adds a flag of flag INF-Flag to Segment list administrative flags specified
by draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-admin-flags. The value (1) for INF-Flags indicates
endpoint node SID is included in installing SID list(s) of the Candidate Path
(CP) when set.
<3) draft-ali-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-sl-opt-distribution-00.txt - send INF-Flag
in BGP-LS
<Why 3 drafts in 1 call?
<As you can see from the description, if draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-admin-flags is
not adopted - then the other two drafts cannot be adopted.
<Similarly, if draft-liu-idr-sr-segment-list-optimized is not adopted, then
draft-ali-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-sl-opt-distribution cannot be adopted.
<
<<Questions for Spring WG:
<1) Do these drafts correct implement
[draft-ietf-spring-srv6-policy-sid-list-opt] concepts?>
<2) Do you see any problem with the adoption of any of these three drafts:
<(draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-admin-flag-05.txt,
draft-liu-idr-sr-segment-list-optimize-06.txt,
draft-ali-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-sl-opt-distribution-00.txt)
<Question for IDR:
<1) Are there any problems in the technology descriptions?
<2) Does the status and setting of this flag work? Are the "delays" inherent
in BGP distribution a concern?
<3) Does this draft help operators deploy SRv6?
<Question for Spring and IDR:
<1) Does this draft open any error issues?
<Please include in your comments - Support or No support for adoption.
<Cheerily, Susan Hares
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
