Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter

Inline [DV] At IETF101, you and Bruno presented a slide based on the WG feedback on the mailing list (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-spring-00-chairs-slides-01). During the Spring meeting, the WG agreed to add milestones to those items. In general, I see some

Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter

Hi all, I support and agree w/ Zafar. Multicast in SR is much needed and there is lots of development that needs to happen, whether for SRv6 or with SR-MPLS. The core architecture and development need to be included in this working group. Thanks, dan From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" Date:

[spring] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-00.txt

Hi SPRING WG, We pushed this draft / Analysis in the DMM WG; Comments/questions/Suggestions are welcome. dan From: internet-dra...@ietf.org Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 4:32 AM To: Voyer, Daniel; Voyer, Daniel; Takuya Miyasaka; Satoru Matsushima

Re: [spring] SPRING - rechartering discussion

I have to echo Paul’s comments and add the following: 1. So far, we haven’t worked yet on SRv6 and SR-MPLS interworking. This is a necessity for any operators trying to integrate and leverage SR for different islands in its network; wireline AND packet core – Mobile network. Traffic

Re: [spring] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: SPRING - rechartering discussion

[DV] see inlines From: spring on behalf of "Shah, Himanshu" Date: Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 9:23 PM To: Jeff Tantsura , Daniel Bernier , Bruno Decraene , "spring@ietf.org"

Re: [spring] IETF 104 - SPRING meeting

Hi chair, I would like a 15 min slot to present SR-Replication-draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-voyer-spring-sr-p2mp-policy-01 The draft has been published already and it will be the first time we formally present it. Thank you dan On 2019-03-04, 11:55 AM, "spring on behalf of

Re: [spring] Last Call: (Segment Routing with MPLS data plane) to Proposed Standard

+1 On 2019-02-28, 9:34 AM, "ietf on behalf of Peter Psenak" wrote: I agree. Several other documents that are referencing this draft are waiting for it to become RFC. Peter On 26/02/2019 22:20 , Adrian Farrel wrote: > This draft has been around the block a bit,

Re: [spring] Last Call: (Segment Routing with MPLS data plane) to Proposed Standard

+1 On 2019-02-26, 4:42 PM, "spring on behalf of Ahmed Bashandy" wrote: As a co-author, I second this opinion Ahmed On 2/26/19 1:20 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > This draft has been around the block a bit, but certainly needs to progress > because a lot of

Re: [spring] Working Group Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming

I am not aware of IPR that applies to draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming Dan Voyer From: spring on behalf of Bruno Decraene Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 2:49 PM To: SPRING WG Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programm...@ietf.org" Subject: [spring] Working Group

Re: [spring] IPR Poll for draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming

I am not aware of any IPR, other than the one already disclosed. dan From: Bruno Decraene Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 2:50 PM To: SPRING WG Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programm...@ietf.org" Subject: IPR Poll for draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming Resent-From:

Re: [spring] Working Group Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming

I also support the adoption of this document. Dan Voyer From: "Voyer, Daniel" Date: Friday, March 15, 2019 at 8:34 AM To: Bruno Decraene , SPRING WG Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programm...@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] Working Group Adoption Call for draft-

Re: [spring] SPRING at IETF 105 Montréal

Hi Rob & Bruno, I would like to request a 10 min presentation for SR-replication version 03 - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-voyer-spring-sr-p2mp-policy-03 I will be presenting. Thanks, dan From: spring on behalf of Rob Shakir Date: Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 1:58 AM To: SPRING WG List

Re: [spring] IPR Poll for draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming

As a co-author, I am not aware of any IPR other than the one already disclosed. dan From: spring on behalf of Bruno Decraene Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 2:50 PM To: SPRING WG Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programm...@ietf.org" Subject: [spring] IPR Poll for

Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6.

Hi, I agree with Dirk. The SRv6 fulfills our requirements for vast majority of our use-cases. For some use cases requiring MTU efficiency, we have SRv6 uSID segments that are just a different pseudo code and is fully integrated with SRH. I also concur, there is no need for the work group for

Re: [spring] Regaining Focus on SRv6 and SRv6+

I also agree 100% with Robert and Dirk. Alright, has this tread grow, I am getting confused, here’s why: First, is it a fair statement to say that there is no SRv6+ deployment with real experience ? Yes or no, I’m just curious to know. There are some SRv6 deployments – facts:

Re: [spring] draft-voyer-spring-sr-p2mp-policy-03

Hi Bruno, Yes, we are currently reviewing and working on simplifying the draft. We will submit a new draft in September. Thanks, Dan From: spring on behalf of Bruno Decraene Date: Thursday, August 1, 2019 at 9:48 AM To: SPRING WG List Subject: [EXT][spring]

Re: [spring] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion-07.txt

Hi Joel, Sent from my mobile > On Sep 21, 2019, at 00:54, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > > I see where the draft defines a set of constraints. > The constraint that there be no other extension headers is a fairly drastic > constraint, which would seem a cause for concern. > > Putting that aside

Re: [spring] IPR Poll: draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment

Hi, as author, I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft. dan From: spring on behalf of Bruno Decraene Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 12:04 PM To: "draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segm...@ietf.org" Cc: spring Subject: [EXT][spring] IPR Poll:

Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

I agree 100% with Jingrong, PSP allows us to bring SRv6 to legacy PE devices that are not capable of processing the SRH in the dataplane, but are capable of supporting SRv6 in the control plane. See this example: I am streaming traffic from a server to a customer; The ingress PE (near the

Re: [spring] IPR poll for draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

As co-author, I’m not aware of any undisclosed IPR that related to this document. Thanks dan On 2019-12-05, 11:50 AM, "spring on behalf of bruno.decra...@orange.com" wrote: Hi SPRING WG, In parallel to the WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming, we would like to

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

+1 Thanks dan From: Dirk Steinberg Date: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 12:52 PM To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" Cc: Lizhenbin , Bruno Decraene , SPRING WG List , "6...@ietf.org" <6...@ietf.org>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" , draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Subject: [EXT]Re: [spring] Request to

Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Hi, Please note that Bruno has already clarified that “Rob was not available to take that role”. As “Bruno's integrity is well known”, this email should be considered as a moot point. Thanks Dan On 2020-02-28, 5:04 PM, "spring on behalf of S Moonesamy" wrote: Dear Mr Vigoureux,

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

On Feb 27, 2020, at 05:27, Ted Lemon wrote:  The IETF serves users, not “industry”. Wrong - it’s not the users that fund you to be here, it’s the industry - everything is about the money The IETF does not promote. Our job is to make the internet work interoperably. Brian has raised an

Re: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

+1 ! Sent from my mobile On Feb 27, 2020, at 04:30, Maojianwei (Mao) wrote:  Hi friends, Internet standard is aimed to promote deployment and innovation, but not to be a barrier. While this WG LC has been extended again and again, if we have reached an agreement that SRv6 can bring many

Re: [spring] Is srv6 PSP a good idea

Ridiculous .. any NOS coder, coding IPv6, would have awareness of 2460, why would you even go there .. seriously ? The highlight was for: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26#page-4 - you should probl read it all. I think we've reach the limit of what the

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt

Mark, no need to drag this conversation to the other corner either .. Pablo pasted the email thread, here once again: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/yRkDJlXd71k0VUqagM3D77vYcFI/ If you think it's not closed, then go back to the email trail and keep adding to it. I'm curious to

Re: [spring] IPR poll for draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

I'm not aware of any undisclosed IPR related to this document. dan On 2019-12-05, 11:50 AM, "spring on behalf of bruno.decra...@orange.com" wrote: Hi SPRING WG, In parallel to the WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming, we would like to poll for IPR. If

Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming - 2 week Early Allocation Call

Support this early allocation Thanks, dan From: spring on behalf of Bruno Decraene Date: Thursday, December 19, 2019 at 11:54 AM To: SPRING WG Subject: [EXT][spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming - 2 week Early Allocation Call Hi SPRING WG, This begins a 2 week Early

Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

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

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-03

Support the adoption as co-author. Thanks, dan From: spring on behalf of James Guichard Date: Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 8:52 AM To: "spring@ietf.org" Cc: "ippm-cha...@ietf.org" , "spring-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: [EXT][spring] WG Adoption Call for

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11

Support the adoption, as a co-author. Thanks, dan From: spring on behalf of James Guichard Date: Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 8:51 AM To: "spring@ietf.org" Cc: "ippm-cha...@ietf.org" , "spring-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: [EXT][spring] WG Adoption Call for

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-raza-spring-srv6-yang

As co-author, I’m not aware of any undisclosed IPR. dan From: spring on behalf of James Guichard Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 6:43 AM To: "spring@ietf.org" Cc: "spring-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: [EXT]Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-raza-spring-srv6-yang Dear WG: The 2-week

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-raza-spring-srv6-yang

Hi WG, I support, as a co-author, the adoption of this draft. dan From: spring on behalf of James Guichard Date: Monday, July 13, 2020 at 5:52 PM To: "spring@ietf.org" Cc: "spring-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: [EXT][spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-raza-spring-srv6-yang Dear WG: This

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-raza-spring-sr-policy-yang

Hi WG, I support, as a co-author, the adoption of this draft. dan From: spring on behalf of James Guichard Date: Monday, July 13, 2020 at 11:38 AM To: "spring@ietf.org" Cc: "spring-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: [EXT][spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-raza-spring-sr-policy-yang Dear WG:

Re: [spring] Leadership change

Congratulations to Jim and Joel. Rob, thanks for all the work and Bruno, keep up the good work. dan On 2020-06-14, 4:25 PM, "spring on behalf of Martin Vigoureux" wrote: WG, Rob had decided to step down as chair some time ago. There hasn't been any formal communication on

Re: [spring] WG adoption call for draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment

HI WG, I support as co-author Dan On 2020-06-22, 10:46 AM, "spring on behalf of bruno.decra...@orange.com" wrote: Hi SPRING WG, Authors of draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment [1] have asked for WG adoption. Please indicate your support, comments, or objection, for

Re: [spring] New Version Notification for draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement-01.txt

Hi, In the introduction, last para says: "Appendix A contains a subset of requirements without unanimous consensus." I thought this was enough or we could propose: "Requirement with rough Consensus". After all, it's part if the mandate: " The design team is to produce (rough) consensus (of the

Re: [spring] Fw:New Version Notification for draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement-01.txt

Hi all, This is quite some progress with the appendix A. I agree with the comments that has been expressed by others in regards of appendix A and its requirements as well as the based assumption with SRv6. I would like to stress on the importance of section 4.1.2 SID summarization. As Dirk

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-06.txt

Support for WG adoption. Thanks dan From: James Guichard Date: Monday, June 7, 2021 at 8:34 AM To: "spring@ietf.org" Cc: "spring-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-06.txt Dear WG: The IPPM WG has adopted

Re: [spring] IPR Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy

Hi, I am not aware of any IPR related to this document other than the ones that have been already disclosed. Thanks Dan From: spring on behalf of James Guichard Date: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 6:34 AM To: SPRING WG Cc: "spring-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: [spring] IPR Call for

Re: [spring] Progressing Standardizing SR over IPv6 compression

Hi, I also support a single standard for SRv6 compression. Thanks dan On 2021-08-20, 3:25 PM, "spring on behalf of Haoyu Song" wrote: SPRING WG, I support a single standard for SR compression from the perspective of system design (both hardware and software). I have reviewed the

Re: [spring] WG Adoption call - draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement - draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis

Hi, support adoption of both drafts Thanks, dan From: spring on behalf of Bruno Decraene Date: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 9:12 AM To: "spring@ietf.org" Subject: [EXT][spring] WG Adoption call - draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement - draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis

Re: [spring] SRv6 compression

I agree as well – DT spent a year to come up with an analysis and now have a conclusion. In my view, we are ready to move with a single standard solution. This will unlock the vendors community to adopt an SRv6 compression standard and allow operators to move forward. At the end of the

Re: [spring] WG Adoption call for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

I have read the draft and highly supports it for adoption. 1. When looking at the analysis from the DT, CSID matches all requirements for SRv6; 2. We currently have it deployed in production; 3. We’ve done interop b/w vendors in our lab. Thanks, dan From: spring on behalf of James

Re: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

Hi, The resolution makes sense, so I believe the proposed resolution is sufficient to close the issue. Thanks, Dan From: spring on behalf of Joel Halpern Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 10:59 AM To: SPRING WG List Subject: [EXT][spring] Confimring resolution of issue #3

Re: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #4 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

Hi, The resolution makes sense, so I believe the proposed resolution is sufficient to close the issue. Thanks, Dan From: spring on behalf of Joel Halpern Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 11:00 AM To: SPRING WG List Subject: [EXT][spring] Confimring resolution of issue #4

Re: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #5 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

Hi, The resolution makes sense, so I believe the proposed resolution is sufficient to close the issue. Thanks, Dan From: spring on behalf of Joel Halpern Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 11:00 AM To: SPRING WG List Subject: [EXT][spring] Confimring resolution of issue #5

Re: [spring] Issue 1 regarding draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression

Hi, yes I agree to close this issue. Dan From: spring on behalf of Joel Halpern Date: Monday, July 31, 2023 at 5:08 PM To: SPRING WG List Subject: [EXT][spring] Issue 1 regarding draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression As per the discussions on list and at IETF 117, the SPRING WG chairs

Re: [spring] Confirming resolution of issue #2 of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression

Hi, I agree to close this issue as well. Thanks Dan From: spring on behalf of Joel Halpern Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:30 PM To: SPRING WG List Subject: [EXT][spring] Confirming resolution of issue #2 of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression As mentioned earlier, we also need to

Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment

Hi, As author, I am not aware of any IPR and believe it is ready for publication. Regards, Dan From: spring on behalf of James Guichard Date: Monday, November 28, 2022 at 10:10 AM To: SPRING WG Cc: "spring-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: [EXT][spring] WGLC for

Re: [spring] Fwd: IETF WG state changed to WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression

Hi all, I also support the publication of the draft. It’s well written and already implemented in vendor’s product. We also have deployment in Bell’s network. Thanks Dan From: spring on behalf of Weiqiang Cheng Date: Monday, January 22, 2024 at 9:45 AM To: jmh , spring Subject: [EXT]Re:

Re: [spring] IPR call and Shepherding draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression

Hi, as a contributor I am not aware of any undisclosed IPRs to this document. Thanks Dan On 2024-02-01, 11:36 AM, "spring on behalf of Joel Halpern" mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of j...@joelhalpern.com > wrote: 1) This email initiates an IPR call

Re: [spring] FW: Adoption Call for draft-previdi-6man-segment-routing-header-07

I have read the draft and support for adoption. D. On 2015-08-03, 03:35, spring on behalf of bruno.decra...@orange.com spring-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: FYI: IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH) is being called for adoption in the _6MAN_ WG. -Original