Hi Sasha Agreed with everything you stated that the draft does not propose any extension to existing topological SIDs and no IANA requests.
So what I stated below was referring to maybe a future draft TBD to be developed in LSR that would have an OSPF and ISIS TLV encoding for the resource segment information discussed in this daft and that possible new draft would have IANA code point and would be standards track. Since the topological segments are advertised by IGP OSPF or ISIS, I am guessing you would have a standards track draft in LSR that encodes the resource segments and could update the existing SR-MPLS and SRv6, OSPF and ISIS RFCs / drafts. Kind Regards <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>* *M 301 502-1347* On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 4:00 AM Alexander Vainshtein < alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com> wrote: > Gyan, and all, > > I have re-read the draft > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments-08>, > but I did not find any proposals for “*a new resource attributes > extension encoding to existing topological SIDs*”. The draft explicitly > states that it does not involve any requests to IANA. > > > > The quoted fragment in Section 2.1 suggests that such attributes may be > used (the relevant text is highlighted): > > > > For one IGP prefix, multiple resource-aware prefix-SIDs can be allocated. > Each resource-aware prefix-SID may be associated with a unique <topology, > algorithm> tuple, in this case different <topology, algorithm> tuples can > be used to distinguish the resource-aware prefix-SIDs of the same prefix. In > another case, for one IGP prefix, multiple resource-aware prefix-SIDs may > be associated with the same <topology, algorithm> tuple, then an additional > control plane distinguisher needs to be introduced to distinguish different > resource-aware prefix-SIDs associated with the same <topology, algorithm> > but different groups of network resources. > > > > But I doubt this rather vague statement justifies the draft going for > Standards Track. > > > > Not have I found any references to the drafts with intended status > Standards Track that define any protocol extensions you mention. You may > also take a look at this email > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/jvKe3cmJzgC8rtdXLB3xU9Yax5E/> > from Acee (in the TEAS WG mailing list) . > > > > What, if anything, did I miss? > > > > Regards, and lots of thanks in advance, > > Sasha > > > > *From:* Gyan Mishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 23, 2024 8:02 AM > *To:* Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> > *Cc:* Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com>; > draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segme...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [spring] Intended status of > draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments > > > > > > Hi Jie > > > > I understand the draft proposes an extension to existing topological SIDs > to carry the resource attributes. > > > > However since this draft proposes a new resource attributes extension > encoding to existing topological SIDs I agree this should be standards > track. > > > > Since the topological segments are advertised by IGP OSPF or ISIS, I am > guessing you would have a standards track draft in LSR that encodes the > resource segments and could update the existing SR-MPLS and SRv6, OSPF and > ISIS RFCs / drafts. > > > > You could possibly mention the proposed encoding scheme and fields and > that detail would be integrated into the IGP draft. > > > > Another option would be to introduce new resource aware SIDs that is NRP > centric that would be applicable to both SR-MPLS and SRv6 but would be > independent of topological or service SID so not at that layer. The > resource SID would be associated with the BSID that binds the single or > multiple candidate path to the forwarding plane and instantiates the path. > So for SR-MPLS it would be the entire label stack pushed onto the packet > when the BSID is popped. For SRv6 it would be SRH segment list associated > with the candidate paths. > > > > In this option you would have a standards track draft in LSR that encodes > the resource segments and could update the existing SR-MPLS and SRv6, OSPF > and ISIS RFCs / drafts. > > > > The contents of the resource SID would now apply to the NRP and would be > as you described, buffers, queues, bandwidth, SLO and SLE parameters such > as latency and jitter for NRP network slice. > > > > Kind Regards > > > [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com> > > *Gyan Mishra* > > *Network Solutions Architect * > > *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>* > > *M 301 502-1347* > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 3:39 AM Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong= > 40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Hi Sasha, > > > > Thanks for the review and comment on this document. > > > > Although this draft does not introduce new SR segment type/SRv6 behavior, > there is change in the semantics and forwarding behavior of the > resource-aware segments, as each resource-aware SIDs identifies a subset of > the network resources used for packet processing. > > > > Thus the authors consider this document belong to standard track. That > said, the usage of IETF keywords in current version needs to be revisited > and adjusted if needed. > > > > Of course we would like to hear the opinions from the WG participants, and > follow the decision of the WG. > > > > Best regards, > > Jie > > > > *From:* spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org <spring-boun...@ietf.org>] *On > Behalf Of *Alexander Vainshtein > *Sent:* Sunday, January 21, 2024 2:16 PM > *To:* draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segme...@ietf.org > *Cc:* spring@ietf.org > *Subject:* [spring] Intended status of > draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments > > > > Hello, > > I have read the draft > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments-08>, > and I do not have any technical comments on it. > > At the same time, I wonder why its intended status appears as “Standard > Track”: > > 1. The draft does not define any new mechanisms in the data plane or > control plane > > 2. Usage of the IETF keywords denoting requirement levels looks too > vague/generic to me, e.g. > > a. The details of the underlay network MUST NOT be exposed to third > parties, to prevent attacks aimed at exploiting shared network resources > > b. If there are related link advertisements, then consistency MUST > be assured across that set of advertisements > > > > IMHO and FWIW the draft describes how resource-aware forwarding can be > achieved using various already-defined SR mechanisms. > > > > Have the authors and/or the WG considered changing the intended status of > the draft to “Informational”? > > > > Regards, > > Sasha > > > > > > *Disclaimer* > > This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of > Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or > proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, > disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without > express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, > including any attachments. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
