I am not sure I agree that the allowance for handling the HMAC elsewhere
is straightforward. For example, I think the range of implementation
strategies for border nodes and the intersection of that with the range
of operational and deployment strategies is going to actually make it
harder to
I think we’re almost concluded so once more inline at
> On Oct 26, 2018, at 2:28 PM, Joel Halpern wrote:
>
> (resending, +spring as requested)
>
> Thank you for the responses. I will respond in line, marked . I
> fear it will shortly get too deep, but the context is important.
>
> I will
Thanks Ahmed.
Next steps are :
- shepherd write up (Shraddha)
- 2 weeks to allow WG to comment on the changes, especially from Chris, PK,
Ruediger, Sasha, Shraddha.
- WG chairs go ahead (delegated to Martin (AD) as both chairs co-author)
Thank you,
--Bruno
From: Ahmed Bashandy
Thanks Ahmed.
This addresses my comments.
--Bruno
From: Ahmed Bashandy [mailto:abashandy.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 11:33 PM
To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN; draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-m...@ietf.org
Cc: SPRING WG List
Subject: Re: WG Last Call for
Ladislav,
Thank you for your review, especially on a short notice before the IETF meeting.
Authors,
Could follow up on those comments and reply to Ladislav' email?
Thanks,
--Bruno
> -Original Message-
> From: Ladislav Lhotka [mailto:lho...@nic.cz]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24,
Hi,
This version (verison-03) addresses the comments received so far, the updates
include:
1. According to the mailing list discussions, there was preference to the "one
label" option for SR path identification, hence, the "two label" option is
removed;
2. According to the suggestion from
