Thank you Martin, very happy that we are moving forward with this
Dan
Sent from my mobile
> On Apr 14, 2020, at 08:17, Martin Vigoureux
> wrote:
>
> WG,
>
> it's been more than a month since the e-mail below.
> In the meantime there were few updates. These updates cover the resolution of
Vigoureux
Sent: Tuesday, 14 April 2020 15:17
To: spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
WG,
it's been more than a month since the e-mail below.
In the meantime there were few updates. These updates cover the
resolution of Brian's (v11 and f
WG,
it's been more than a month since the e-mail below.
In the meantime there were few updates. These updates cover the
resolution of Brian's (v11 and finally v12) and Joel's (v13 and finally
v15) concerns, plus some other minor changes.
Also, there were other comments:
- on the relation with
Hi Sander,
Please check inline below.
-Original Message-
From: Sander Steffann
Sent: 12 March 2020 19:14
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: Andrew Alston ; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
; spring@ietf.org; 6man WG
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Hi,
> In this context, we are talking about allocations for the provider's
> infrastructure.
No, we’re not. Allocations are the superblocks that RIRs delegate to an LIR.
Before being allowed to use address space an LIR has to make assignments from
that allocation. It is that assignment policy
ation.
Please check further inline below.
-Original Message-
From: Sander Steffann
Sent: 12 March 2020 18:26
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: Andrew Alston ; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
; spring@ietf.org; 6man WG
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Hi,
> So what is it that you and Andrew see in the net-pgm draft or the SRv6
> proposal that lead you to believe such a change in the IPv6 assignment or
> allocation sizes are required by RIRs?
Well, your example mentions that a /40 is used for SRv6 in a very large setup.
A regular business en
nks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: Sander Steffann
Sent: 12 March 2020 17:23
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: Andrew Alston ; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
; spring@ietf.org; 6man WG
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Hi,
> I believe the /20 exa
Hi,
> I believe the /20 example was what Softbank seems to be using for their (very
> large?) network and use-cases. It’s an example of how much IPv6 space they’ve
> got from ARIN. A millionth of that for SRv6 indicates a /40 (if I’ve got my
> maths right). Now, I don’t claim to be aware of Sof
technical point you don’t want to explain?
Thanks,
Ketan
From: spring On Behalf Of Andrew Alston
Sent: 12 March 2020 16:35
To: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man WG
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Pablo,
I’ve clarified these questions
nicely side stepped.
Andrew
From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
Sent: Wednesday, 11 March 2020 17:42
To: Andrew Alston
Cc: 6man WG ; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Andrew,
The threads you initiated describing technical questions on the mailing
ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Alston
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 8:48 AM
To: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
Cc: spring@ietf.org; 6man WG
Subject: RE: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Pablo
PC2: The comment started because in the draft we had an example that was
assi
points outstanding on this topic.
Regards,
Pablo.
From: Andrew Alston
Date: Wednesday, 11 March 2020 at 11:52
To: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)"
Cc: 6man WG , "spring@ietf.org"
Subject: RE: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
First I fail to see in the
First I fail to see in the recording where such promise happened. I asked you
for the precise timing but you did not send it.
It seems to me that you are putting words in someone else’s mouth, because the
presenter asked you politely to send your comment to the mailer and you didn’t.
Then you ar
Andrew,
Inline with PC3.
Regards,
Pablo.
From: Andrew Alston
Date: Wednesday, 11 March 2020 at 08:48
To: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)"
Cc: 6man WG , "spring@ietf.org"
Subject: RE: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Pablo
PC2: The comment started
Pablo
PC2: The comment started because in the draft we had an example that was
assigning A:1::/32 as loopback interface for a router. This is wrong (prefix
length, documentation prefix,).
This was fixed in revision 2 of the WG draft, published in September 19th 2019.
The closure of this comment
ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Subject: RE: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
Sent: Wednesday, 4 March 2020 15:17
To: Andrew Alston ; Martin Vigoureux
; spring@ietf.org
Cc: 6...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Sub
> *Cc: *"Joel M. Halpern" , "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <
> ddu...@cisco.com>, "spring@ietf.org" , Martin Vigoureux <
> martin.vigour...@nokia.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
>
>
>
>
>
>
From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
Sent: Wednesday, 4 March 2020 15:17
To: Andrew Alston ; Martin Vigoureux
; spring@ietf.org
Cc: 6...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Andrew,
Inline. PC1.
Regards
, March 5, 2020 8:15 AM
To: Martin Vigoureux ; spring@ietf.org
Cc: 'i...@ietf.org'
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Martin,
On 4/3/20 18:02, Martin Vigoureux wrote:
> WG,
>
> I wanted to bring more context to my decision.
>
> This docum
, "spring@ietf.org" , Martin Vigoureux
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
> When a vendor is pushing me to implement a technology
Last time I checked SRv6 is not enabled by default by any code base. What type
of "vendor push" are you refe
Martin,
On 4/3/20 18:02, Martin Vigoureux wrote:
WG,
I wanted to bring more context to my decision.
This document has received a lot of valuable reviews and comments which
improved it. That served me as a base to determine consensus on the
overall document.
The point I'd like to insist on
On 4/3/20 18:21, Darren Dukes (ddukes) wrote:
Hi Ron
I don’t think you are really asking equipment vendors to provide that
information on this list. That will not happen.
I don't think you're really asking us to ship PSP without a proper
rationale. That will not happen.
Thanks,
--
Fernand
Thank you Martin,
I support this clear statement. Even WG/AD management is expected to find the
essence from bunch of emails, it shouldn't be easy task. Great job, thanks.
Best regards,
--satoru
> 2020/03/05 6:02、Martin Vigoureux のメール:
>
> WG,
>
> I wanted to bring more context to my decisio
Hi,
> I guarantee you there is case the performance penalty is more than 90%, only
> if the box send the IPv6 packet with RH or EH to the slow path (just to be
> compatible with RFC8200)!
> And I think that's common even for not very old box.
So you are saying that we're going through all thes
t;
>
>
>
> *From: *spring on behalf of "Joel M. Halpern" <
> j...@joelhalpern.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, 5 March 2020 at 00:25
> *To: *"Darren Dukes (ddukes)"
> *Cc: *"spring@ietf.org" , Martin Vigoureux <
> martin.vigour...@nokia.com&
> *Cc:*Ron Bonica > <mailto:rbon...@juniper.net>>;bruno.decra...@orange.com
>> <mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>;spring@ietf.org
>> <mailto:spring@ietf.org>; Joel M. Halpern > <mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>>; Martin Vigoureux
>> mailto:martin.
s)
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 4:22 PM
To: Ron Bonica
Cc: Andrew G. Malis ; Robert Raszuk ;
bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org; Joel M. Halpern
; Martin Vigoureux
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Hi Ron
I don't think you are really asking equi
mailto:martin.vigour...@nokia.com>>
*Subject:*Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
MPLS PHP was invented to solve a particular issue with some forwarding
engines at the time - they couldn't do a final pop followed by an IP
lookup and forward operation in a si
f.org>; Joel M. Halpern
mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>>; Martin Vigoureux
mailto:martin.vigour...@nokia.com>>
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
MPLS PHP was invented to solve a particular issue with some forwarding engines
at the time - they coul
WG,
I wanted to bring more context to my decision.
This document has received a lot of valuable reviews and comments which
improved it. That served me as a base to determine consensus on the
overall document.
The point I'd like to insist on is the one I was mentioning in my
previous e-mail.
M. Halpern ; bruno.decra...@orange.com; Martin
Vigoureux ; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Hi Joel,
Surely you are exaggerating when you say "one person" asked for something in
the context of PSP? 😊
Would you like to clarify?
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
MPLS PHP was invented to solve a particular issue with some forwarding engines
at the time - they couldn't do a final pop followed by an IP lookup and forward
operation in a single forwarding cycle (it would impact forwa
Joel,
> From: Joel Halpern Direct [mailto:jmh.dir...@joelhalpern.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 8:56 AM
> To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant); DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN; Martin Vigoureux;
> spring@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programmi
On 3/3/20 13:07, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
[]
Good.
How do you propose that we get an evaluation and formal answer from the IESG on
this point?
My proposal is to ask while asking the IESG review on
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming.
THat seems to late in the process.
May
-Original Message-
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M.
Halpern
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 4:34 PM
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ;
bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC -
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Given that we
>> *Cc:* spring@ietf.org; Alexander Vainshtein <
>> alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Ketan,
>>
>>
>>
>> So essentially you are confirming that
Wednesday, March 4, 2020 9:31 PM
> *To:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
> *Cc:* spring@ietf.org; Alexander Vainshtein <
> alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
>
>
>
> Hi Ketan,
>
>
>
> So esse
Inline;
From: spring On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 9:31 PM
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: spring@ietf.org; Alexander Vainshtein
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Hi Ketan,
So essentially you are confirming that subject to
Joel Halpern Direct [mailto:jmh.dir...@joelhalpern.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 9:39 PM
To: Xiejingrong (Jingrong) ; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Jingrong, the only "processing" of the SRH required in the ultimate node i
tf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 4:34 PM
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ;
bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Given that we are talking about the ultimate node, all that it is being a
--
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 4:34 PM
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ;
bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Given that we are talking about the ult
e check inline below.
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Raszuk
> *Sent:* 04 March 2020 16:07
> *To:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
> *Cc:* Alexander Vainshtein ;
> spring@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
>
>
>
ramming-12
Thanks,
Jingrong
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark Smith
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 5:40 AM
To: Martin Vigoureux
Cc: SPRING WG ; 6MAN <6...@ietf.org>;
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-net
Bruno,
As I announced in my email, the revision -11 aims at addressing the comments
related to section 4.16.1 as per your email below.
Today I have posted another revision (-12) that addresses Brian’s editorial
comments on that same section. There are no other changes in rev 12. I believe
that
Andrew,
Inline. PC1.
Regards,
Pablo.
From: Andrew Alston
Date: Monday, 2 March 2020 at 20:56
To: Martin Vigoureux , "spring@ietf.org"
Cc: "6...@ietf.org" <6...@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-sprin
Hi Robert,
Please check inline below.
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: 04 March 2020 16:07
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: Alexander Vainshtein ; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Hi Ketan,
Let's assume following sce
t-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Resent from:
Resent to: , , ,
, ,
Resent date: Monday, 2 March 2020 at 22:48
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 at 08:39, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> This -11 draft was poste
2020 15:41
> *To:* Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
> *Cc:* spring@ietf.org; Martin Vigoureux ;
> Joel M. Halpern ; Andrew G. Malis
> *Subject:* RE: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
>
>
>
> Ketan,
>
> Lots of thanks for the pointer.
>
>
Hi Sasha,
Please check inline below.
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: 04 March 2020 15:41
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: spring@ietf.org; Martin Vigoureux ; Joel M.
Halpern ; Andrew G. Malis
Subject: RE: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Ketan,
Lots of thanks
sht...@ecitele.com
-Original Message-
From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 11:49 AM
To: Alexander Vainshtein ; Joel M. Halpern
; Andrew G. Malis
Cc: spring@ietf.org; Martin Vigoureux
Subject: RE: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Hi
0 15:09
To: Joel M. Halpern ; Andrew G. Malis
Cc: spring@ietf.org; Martin Vigoureux
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Joel, Andy and all,
FWIW I concur with your positions regarding comparison between PHP in MPLS and
PSP in SRv6.
I would also like to stres
: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com
-Original Message-
From: spring On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 9:09 AM
To: Andrew G. Malis
Cc: spring@ietf.org; Martin Vigoureux
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
In this case, it is even
e could just agree to disagree.
Thanks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: Joel M. Halpern
Sent: 04 March 2020 14:04
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; bruno.decra...@orange.com;
spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Given that we are talking about
ern mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>>
> Sent: 04 March 2020 13:16
> To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <mailto:ket...@cisco.com>>;
> bruno.decra...@orange.com <mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>; Martin
Vigoureux
> mailto:martin.vigour...@nokia.com>>;
spr
s.ietf.org/html/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-05#section-4.2
-Original Message-
From: Joel Halpern Direct
Sent: 04 March 2020 13:26
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; bruno.decra...@orange.com;
Martin Vigoureux ; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-
nt to just
dismissing them without sharing your views?
Thanks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: Joel M. Halpern
Sent: 04 March 2020 13:16
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; bruno.decra...@orange.com; Martin
Vigoureux ; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-net
ust
dismissing them without sharing your views?
Thanks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: Joel M. Halpern
Sent: 04 March 2020 13:16
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; bruno.decra...@orange.com;
Martin Vigoureux ; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-pro
useful./
/UNQOUTE/
It’s pure logic!
Please check inline below.
-Original Message-
From: spring On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: 03 March 2020 21:54
To: bruno.decra...@orange.com; Martin Vigoureux
; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
It’s pure logic!
Please check inline below.
-Original Message-
From: spring On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: 03 March 2020 21:54
To: bruno.decra...@orange.com; Martin Vigoureux ;
spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
I'm
In this case, it is even less relevant. The PSP for SRv6 does not
remove the double-processing. It merely removes the need to ignore the
SRH at the ultimate node.
Yours,
Joel
On 3/3/2020 6:27 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
MPLS PHP was invented to solve a particular issue with some forwarding
e
etwork-programming; 6man WG
> > Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
> >
> > Hi Bruno,
> >
> > >> Wait, what?! There is no "we needed to advance this document" in the
> > >> IETF or any other conse
On Wed, 4 Mar 2020, 09:59 Robert Raszuk, wrote:
>
> You are right Mark ... I fully admit I have no clue what so ever about
> "IPv6 being a virtual MAC layer in SR" nor " IPv6 being used as a virtual
> link layer".
>
I didn't say you had no clue.
Saying things like "MPLS is not link layer." sugg
MPLS PHP was invented to solve a particular issue with some forwarding
engines at the time - they couldn't do a final pop followed by an IP lookup
and forward operation in a single forwarding cycle (it would impact
forwarding speed by 50% best case). 20 years later, is this still an issue
at the ha
You are right Mark ... I fully admit I have no clue what so ever about
"IPv6 being a virtual MAC layer in SR" nor " IPv6 being used as a virtual
link layer".
I was only talking about MPLS on which topic I think I still have a little
bit of remaining knowledge.
Thx a lot,
Robert
On Tue, Mar 3, 2
ng
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Martin,
As an Area Director, what are your thoughts regarding Bruno's claim that
this working group (Spring) doesn't have the necessary skills for
evaluating the need of a functionality (PSP) that this wg is inc
On Wed, 4 Mar 2020, 08:50 Robert Raszuk, wrote:
>
> MPLS is not link layer.
>
I did not say that. I described how MPLS uses link-layers.
It is Layer 2.5 if you really want to squeeze it to OSI.
>
> Regardless of IPv4, IPv6 or MPLS MACs are replaced at each L3 hop
>
IPv6 is your virtual MAC l
MPLS is not link layer. It is Layer 2.5 if you really want to squeeze it to
OSI.
Regardless of IPv4, IPv6 or MPLS MACs are replaced at each L3 hop - but
that has nothing to do with MPLS PHP. MPLS PHP is the result of LDP
signalling implicit null label from adjacent LSR.
And perhaps it may avoid u
Hi Robert,
On Wed, 4 Mar 2020, 07:11 Robert Raszuk, wrote:
> Hi Ron,
>
> > MPLS PHP is a clear case of de-encapsulation.
>
> Purely looking at technical aspect that is not true at all.
>
Ron is correct.
> MPLS PHP does not remove label stack. MPLS PHP is just used to pop last
> label. Afte
Hi Ron,
> MPLS PHP is a clear case of de-encapsulation.
Purely looking at technical aspect that is not true at all.
MPLS PHP does not remove label stack. MPLS PHP is just used to pop last
label. After MPLS PHP packets continue with remaining label stack to the
egress LSR (example L3VPN PE).
>
aviors, there is no violence done to the draft by removing this flavor.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 3/3/2020 10:49 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
>>> Fernando
>>>
>>>> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of F
Hi Bruno,
> Good.
> How do you propose that we get an evaluation and formal answer from the IESG
> on this point?
> My proposal is to ask while asking the IESG review on
> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming.
I think it's important that the answer can be used to improve the draft, so
wh
0 12:17 PM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 5:24 PM
To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN; Martin Vigoureux; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
I'm sorry, but "in my gear
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 5:24 PM
> To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN; Martin Vigoureux; spring@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
>
> I'm sorry, but "in my gear I want
lto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fernando Gont
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 9:23 PM
To: Martin Vigoureux; spring@ietf.org
Cc: 6...@ietf.org; 'i...@ietf.org'; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Martin,
As a
Sander,
> -Original Message-
> From: Sander Steffann [mailto:san...@steffann.nl]
> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 9:03 PM
> To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN
> Cc: SPRING WG List; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming; 6man WG
> Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-s
Fernando
> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fernando Gont
> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 9:23 PM
> To: Martin Vigoureux; spring@ietf.org
> Cc: 6...@ietf.org; 'i...@ietf.org'; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
> Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC
Hi Pablo,
It’s not clear to me whether this version -11 aims at addressing all received
comments, or only the one related to section 4.16.1.
Could you please clarify to avoid misunderstanding? And avoiding unnecessary
waiting or deadlock.
If -11 does not address all received comments (which is
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 at 08:39, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> This -11 draft was posted at 3:53 am Melbourne, Australia time, and this
> declaration of consensus was at 5:35 am Melbourne, Australia time.
>
> Sometimes I'm awake at those hours, but not last night. I did not have an
> opportunity to review t
This -11 draft was posted at 3:53 am Melbourne, Australia time, and this
declaration of consensus was at 5:35 am Melbourne, Australia time.
Sometimes I'm awake at those hours, but not last night. I did not have an
opportunity to review the changes.
Regards,
Mark.
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020, 05:53 Ma
Martin,
As an Area Director, what are your thoughts regarding Bruno's claim that
this working group (Spring) doesn't have the necessary skills for
evaluating the need of a functionality (PSP) that this wg is including
in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming?
Specifically, Bruno has not
Martin,
On 2/3/20 15:53, Martin Vigoureux wrote:
WG,
as I had indicated in a previous message I am the one evaluating
consensus for this WG LC.
This is more and more confusing, seriously.
Bruno did the WGLC, and also communicated the outcome of the WGLC in
first person, and now you state t
Hi,
> My overall conclusion is that there is support and rough consensus to move
> this document to the next stage.
Declare consensus immediately after a new version is published and people
haven't even had the change to read it?
NO, just NO
Sander
signature.asc
Description: Message signed
Hi Bruno,
>> Wait, what?! There is no "we needed to advance this document" in the IETF
>> or any other consensus based forum...
>
> By advance this document, I meant start the WG LC. Which is about collecting
> comments on the document.
I think you are confused. This document has been in WG L
: spring on behalf of Martin Vigoureux
Date: Monday, 2 March 2020 at 21:53
To: "spring@ietf.org"
Cc: "6...@ietf.org" <6...@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
WG,
as I had indic
Martin,
On 03-Mar-20 07:53, Martin Vigoureux wrote:
> WG,
>
> as I had indicated in a previous message I am the one evaluating
> consensus for this WG LC.
>
> I have carefully read the discussions on the list. I acknowledge that
> disagreements were expressed regarding what a particular piece
WG,
as I had indicated in a previous message I am the one evaluating
consensus for this WG LC.
I have carefully read the discussions on the list. I acknowledge that
disagreements were expressed regarding what a particular piece of text
of RFC 8200 says, and on which this document builds to p
On 2/3/20 14:28, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
Fernando,
From: Fernando Gont [mailto:ferna...@gont.com.ar]
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 6:14 PM
To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN; S Moonesamy; Martin Vigoureux; Suresh Krishnan
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6
Fernando,
> From: Fernando Gont [mailto:ferna...@gont.com.ar]
> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 6:14 PM
> To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN; S Moonesamy; Martin Vigoureux; Suresh Krishnan
> Cc: spring@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
>
On 2/3/20 11:16, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
[...]
The summary provides by the Working Group Chair states that the
Responsible Area Director "has not accepted the related errata". I
took a quick look at erratum eid5933; it is listed as "Reported". As
the erratum has not been classified as
Hi all,
Based on the email below and the received feedback we have published a new
revision of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming.
This new version only introduces changes in the PSP section. Those changes are
editorial changes destined to simplify the reading of the aforementioned
sect
Hello, Bruno,
On 2/3/20 10:19, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
[]
===
A) PSP [1] & RFC 8200 [2]
===
This point is whether SRH removal by the penultimate SR end point
(aka PSP) is allowed by RFC 8200.
More specifically
" S14.4.Remove the SRH from the IPv6 extensi
; Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 8:28 PM
> >> To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN; 'SPRING WG List'
> >> Cc: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming; rtg-ads
> >> Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
> >>
> >>
Andrew,
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Alston
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 8:07 AM
To: Joel M. Halpern; Robert Raszuk
Cc: SPRING WG
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
(off-topic)
The usual practice when a hair o-authors a
Dear S. Moonesamy,
Please see and read inline
> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of S Moonesamy
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 11:03 PM
> To: Martin Vigoureux
> Cc: spring@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programmi
S. Moonesamy,
Please see inline
>
> -Original Message-
> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of S Moonesamy
> Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2020 9:36 PM
> To: Andrew Alston; i...@ietf.org
> Cc: spring@ietf.org; Martin Vigoureux
> Subject: Re: [spri
bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 2:40 PM
To: S Moonesamy; Martin Vigoureux; Suresh Krishnan
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Dear Mr S. Moonesamy,
> -Original Message-
> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.
Dear Mr S. Moonesamy,
> -Original Message-
> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of S Moonesamy
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 11:03 PM
> To: Martin Vigoureux
> Cc: spring@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-pro
8:28 PM
To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN; 'SPRING WG List'
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming; rtg-ads
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Bruno,
On 28/2/20 13:53, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
Hello SPRING WG,
Please find below some status o
Sander,
> From: Sander Steffann [mailto:san...@steffann.nl]
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 8:51 PM
> To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN
> Cc: SPRING WG List; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming; 6man WG
> Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-netw
1 - 100 of 177 matches
Mail list logo
