Hi,
The draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining [1] document failed its WGLC with
substantial comments received.
The document has been updated beginning of December and we would like to know
if people are now happy with the content of the new version.
This email starts a poll of 1 week to gather addit
Jingrong,
> It is determined by the sender site PE whether to steer the flow of (C-S,
> C-G) into (*,*) PMSI-tunnel or (S,G)PMSI-tunnel, and the receiver site PE
> should work correctly in any case.
Why would the sender PE send into (*, *) when there is a match for (S,G)?
Jeffrey
> -Origi
Hi Stephane,
The WGLC for this draft was ended on Dec/17. Yu sent his 1st batch of editorial
comments about 3 weeks after WGLC ended on 1/7 and I addressed them. He then
generated a new set which I addressed them as well. He has now generated the
third set which are mostly invalid and indicativ
Hi Ali and Stephane,
Sorry again for comment too many times at this stage. I understand LC
officially ended (but failed), thanks for Ali’s patient.
If we check the document we still have many changes in recent days and part
of them are real mistakes not just optimization right?
Ali, please
I am happy with the update. The encapsulation could also mention segment
routing.
From: BESS on behalf of Stephane Litkowski
Date: Friday, 11 January 2019 at 00:37
To: "bess@ietf.org"
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org"
Subject: [bess] short WGLC for draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining
Hi,
The draft-i
