Hi Bruno, Yes, you are correct. I found out that the text of P-flag in IANA was deleted in revision 05, but I did not mean to delete it, so it might be a mistake. I added it back in the latest revision in attachments, please see the diff, hope it can address your comments.
This is the revision to address Adrian's comments(part of?): https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-03&url2=draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-04&difftype=--html This is the update of revision 05 after discussion with Dhruv to update the solution, we delete some text in IANA section, but the P-flag related text should not be removed. https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-04&url2=draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-05&difftype=--html Thank you for your valuable comments. Respect, Cheng -----Original Message----- From: bruno.decra...@orange.com <bruno.decra...@orange.com> Sent: Monday, September 2, 2024 6:26 PM To: Cheng Li <c...@huawei.com>; spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segm...@ietf.org Subject: RE: Request for MORE reviews of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09 Cheng, SPRING WG > From: Cheng Li <c.l=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> > Sent: Monday, September 2, 2024 5:46 PM > To: spring@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segm...@ietf.org > Subject: [spring] Request for MORE reviews of > draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09 > > > Hi SPRING, > > The SR-MPLS Path Segment draft has been published as RFC9545, and we think > the content of SRv6 Path Segment draft is quite stable and mature, so we hope > to see more tech reviews on it so that we can move the draft forward. > > The draft is quite simple and straightforward, and it defines a new type of > segment called Path Segment, which is useful to identify an SRv6 path, > similar to SR-MPLS path segment. > The draft only defines the location that the SRv6 Path Segment should appear, > the possible general formats of it, and the general handling of Path Segment. > How to allocate the value to a Path Segment is out of the scope of this draft > and should be defined as per use cases. I think that it's fair to add that this document also defines one flag in the SRH and that those flags are a limited resource (7 remaining), with probably little ability to extend for the SRv6 lifetime. On a side note, this P-flag is: - not described in the IANA section. Please add it. - has not been allocated by the IANA so please do not squat on one flag. (as currently done in Figure 3) Thanks, --Bruno > An SRv6 Path Segment will not be used for routing so it should not be copied > to the IPv6 destination address. > > Many thanks for Adrian, Stefano and Zafar for their useful comments and help > on this draft. More reviews and comments are welcome! > > Thanks, > Cheng > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: internet-dra...@ietf.org <internet-dra...@ietf.org> > Sent: Monday, September 2, 2024 5:15 PM > To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org > Cc: spring@ietf.org > Subject: [spring] I-D Action: > draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09.txt > > Internet-Draft draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09.txt is now available. > It is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) WG of > the IETF. > > Title: Path Segment for SRv6 (Segment Routing in IPv6) > Authors: Cheng Li > Weiqiang Cheng > Mach(Guoyi) Chen > Dhruv Dhody > Yongqing Zhu > Name: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09.txt > Pages: 13 > Dates: 2024-09-02 > > Abstract: > > Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end > paths by encoding an ordered list of instructions, called "segments". > The SR architecture can be implemented over an MPLS data plane as > well as an IPv6 data plane. > > Currently, Path Segment has been defined to identify an SR path in > SR-MPLS networks, and is used for various use-cases such as end-to- > end SR Path Protection and Performance Measurement (PM) of an SR > path. This document defines the Path Segment to identify an SRv6 > path in an IPv6 network. > > The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment/ > > There is also an HTMLized version available at: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segm > ent-09 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path- > segment-09 > > Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at: > rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to > spring-le...@ietf.org _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to > spring-le...@ietf.org > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
<<< text/html; name="draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-10.diff.html": Unrecognized >>>
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org
