Hi Tarek,
Thanks for your comment, please see some replies inline:
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tarek Saad
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2020 2:57 AM
To: James Guichard ; spring@ietf.org
Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for
Hi Dhruv,
Thanks for your support and comments. Please see some replies inline:
> -Original Message-
> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
> Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2020 1:28 AM
> To: James Guichard
> Cc: spring@ietf.org; spring-cha...@ietf.org
>
Thank you. That does clarify, and it would probably be good to be
explicit in the document. (The restriction makes sense, we just need to
be clear.)
Yours,
Joel
On 7/25/2020 8:31 PM, Stefano Salsano wrote:
Il 2020-07-25 19:49, Joel M. Halpern ha scritto:
In looking at the description of
Il 2020-07-25 19:49, Joel M. Halpern ha scritto:
In looking at the description of the dyanmic proxy behavior, I was
reminded of a problem that the SFC working group wrestled with and never
resolved to our satisfaction. (In the SFC case, since we were not
specifying the behavior of the
Hi,
I agree with Dhruv's comments that there should not be separate configuration
and state trees.
Also "grouping" is overly used in the model, and I'd suggest the authors remove
some groups when updating the draft.
Thanks,
Yingzhen
On 7/25/20, 10:23 AM, "spring on behalf of Dhruv Dhody"
Forwarding for your information as requested by the nomcom chair.
Thank you,
Joel
Forwarded Message
Subject: Encourage people to visit NomCom during office hours
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2020 20:16:18 +
From: STARK, BARBARA H
To: 'Working Group Chairs'
Hi WG Chairs,
Could you
Hi WG,
This document is touching important topics regarding forwarding on specific set
of resources in the network (such as those that define a network slice).
For this, it’s important to be able to identify transiting traffic as belonging
to a specific slice so as to impose the specific
become a chair issue, in which case, I will look at it through a
different lens. Heck, I may even disagree with myself.>
Let me start by saying that I understand and support what the draft is
trying to do. While I like SFC, I am under no illusions that it is or
should be the only answer to
In looking at the description of the dyanmic proxy behavior, I was
reminded of a problem that the SFC working group wrestled with and never
resolved to our satisfaction. (In the SFC case, since we were not
specifying the behavior of the proxy, we could leave it to implementors.
This
Hi WG,
I support adoption on this work, it is in good shape to be adopted to
be in the working group control. Hope the authors/WG find these
comments useful -
(1) I would like to see this work provide more guidance for the
protocol extensions -
- Virtual network identifiers and its scope
-
Very much with Dhruv here.
While the work is important and should be progressing, overall quality could be
significantly improved.
Please use draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang as the example.
Regards,
Jeff
> On Jul 25, 2020, at 10:22, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
>
> Hi WG,
>
> I support the adoption of this
Hi WG,
I support the adoption of this work and I have thoughts on how to
improve the document -
Some questions/comments -
- Can the title of the I-D be improved?
- Why do you have the config and the state trees separately in Figures
1 and 2? That's out of fashion with NMDA!
- I hope this model
Hi WG,
I support the adoption of this work and I have thoughts on how to
improve the document -
Some questions/comments -
- Why do you have the config and the state trees separately in Figures
2 and 3? That's out of fashion with NMDA!
- I hope this model is applicable for both the headend
Support.
Best Regards,
Huaimo
From: spring on behalf of James Guichard
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 7:16 AM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn
Dear WG:
This email
14 matches
Mail list logo
