Hi Sue and all,
I support publication of the draft as is. Because from customer side it is
important to have progress in SR TE Policy over BGP standardization and see it
too in time.Yes, there are differences in implementations and lack of full spec
support. That is challenge for controller side or for some interop cases.
Hopefully vendors will reduce the difference in nearest time.I would like to
pay their attention for importance of Policy name and CP name TLVs for network
operations. So far no one supports them so it is impossible to assign those
names in consistent manner especially in multi-vendor case.
SY,Boris On Friday, June 17, 2022, 04:32:54 PM GMT+3, Susan Hares
<sha...@ndzh.com> wrote:
#yiv8935722910 #yiv8935722910 -- _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered
{}#yiv8935722910 #yiv8935722910 p.yiv8935722910MsoNormal, #yiv8935722910
li.yiv8935722910MsoNormal, #yiv8935722910 div.yiv8935722910MsoNormal
{margin:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv8935722910 a:link,
#yiv8935722910 span.yiv8935722910MsoHyperlink
{color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8935722910
p.yiv8935722910MsoListParagraph, #yiv8935722910
li.yiv8935722910MsoListParagraph, #yiv8935722910
div.yiv8935722910MsoListParagraph
{margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv8935722910
span.yiv8935722910EmailStyle20
{font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv8935722910
.yiv8935722910MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered {}#yiv8935722910
div.yiv8935722910WordSection1 {}#yiv8935722910 _filtered {} _filtered {}
_filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {}
_filtered {} _filtered {}#yiv8935722910 ol {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv8935722910
ul {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv8935722910
Greetings Spring WG:
The IDR WG requires 2 implementation to forward a
document for publication.
draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18 has
been partially implemented by 5 vendors, but
not all features have been implemented (AFAIK).
As the Shepherd for this draft, I have made a
Call to the IDR WG (see below) to determine whether the
IDR WG should publish with partial implementations.
We welcome comments on the IDR mail thread, and
Implementers may add details to the implementation report.
Thank you,
Sue Hares
From: Susan Hares
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 9:15 AM
To: i...@ietf.org
Subject: Call for publication of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18 -
with multiple partial implementations (6/17 to 6/30)
IDR:
This is a 2 week call for approval for publication of
draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18).
This draft has past WG LC, and it has been implemented by five separate
commercial vendors.
(I do not have any implementation reports from open-source vendors.)
According to the implementation report, not all
features have been implemented.
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy%20implementations%20
At this point, it appears we do not have 2 implementations
Supporting the following TLV codes:
- ENLP sub-TLV (code 14)
- Priority sub-TLV (code 15)
- SRv6 Binding SID (code 20)
- Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV (code 129), and
- Policy Name Sub-TLV (code 130).
And only segment types A and B out of types A-K have been implemented.
Should the IDR WG:
a) publish this draft as is,
b) put it in a “awaiting implementations” hold until more features are
implemented,
c) remove unimplemented features and publish?
If you are an implemented (open-source or commercial), please
Update your implementation status on the implementation page
Or send me a note regarding your implementation.
Cheers, Sue
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
