[spring] Fwd: [Idr] Interim meeting on 5/20 - On BGP drafts on BGP-LS and SR asking for Adoption

FYI On May 17, 2024 at 12:17:09 PM, Susan Hares (sha...@ndzh.com) wrote: On Monday 5/20/2024, IDR will be holding an interim meeting from 10-12pm EDT. This meeting reviews five drafts for BGP-LS and SR routing. The details are below. Cheerily, Sue Hares == Interim

[spring] Re: [Idr] Question about the draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-net-pgm-insertion

Hi! That draft is not in the adoption queue. Alvaro. On May 15, 2024 at 4:13:50 PM, linchangwang (linchangwang.04...@h3c.com) wrote: Dear SPRING experts, It is currently uncertain whether the defined behavior of H.Insert and H.Insert.Red in the draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-net-pgm-insertion

[spring] Re: request for review and comments

Hi! If you want to formally update other RFCs, you need to do several other things: include a tag in the header, indicate the update in the Abstract and Introduction, and indicate what are the text changes (if any) to the original RFCs. While I still think the (formal) update is not needed, it

[spring] Re: request for review and comments

[spring-chair hat off + idr] Hi! I took a quick look at the draft -- it uses existing TLVs to convey the information, which is good. Given that (IIRC) BGP-LS does not limit TLVs' use as sub-TLVs, rfc9085 already contemplates using the Adjacency SID TLV (as a sub-TLV), and rfc9086 already says

[spring] Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-spring-bfd

邮件原文 *发件人：*Alvaro Retana *收件人：*Wenying Jiang *抄 送: *spring-chairs ,SPRING WG List < spring@ietf.org>,draft-ietf-spring-bfd *发送时间：*2024-05-07 05:32:13 *主题：*Re: [spring] IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-spring-bfd Thanks for the responses. I’m adding Wenying specifically b

[spring] Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-spring-bfd

3, 2024 at 5:39 PM Alvaro Retana > wrote: > >> Dear authors and contributors: >> >> Are you aware of any IPR that applies to this draft? >> >> If so, has it been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see >> BCP78 and BCP79 for more details)? For any u

Re: [spring] Relationship betweendraft-cheng-spring-srv6-policy-resource-gurantee anddraft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments

On April 22, 2024 at 2:46:00 AM, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: Jie: Hi! ... > [Jie] In my understanding, both documents propose enhancements to SR to solve > the requirements for resource guarantee in SR networks. > > The essential is that SR SIDs can be used to indicate not only the function > (or

Re: [spring] Relationship betweendraft-cheng-spring-srv6-policy-resource-gurantee anddraft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments

On April 21, 2024 at 9:56:07 PM, Wenying Jiang wrote: Wenying: Hi! ... > > It is not clear to me that the two mechanisms cannot solve the same > > use cases.  The difference is in this detail: > > > > I-D.cheng-spring-srv6-policy-resource-gurantee: proposes allocating a SID > >    with the

[spring] BFD in SR-MPLS (draft-ietf-spring-bfd)

Dear bfd WG: The spring WG is moving towards a WGLC of this document: "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) in Segment Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane".  From the Abstract:    This document defines how to use Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping to    bootstrap a BFD session, optional

[spring] BFD in SR-MPLS (draft-ietf-spring-bfd)

Dear mpls WG: The spring WG is moving towards a WGLC of this document: "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) in Segment Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane".  From the Abstract:    This document defines how to use Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping to    bootstrap a BFD session, optional

[spring] IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-spring-bfd

Dear authors and contributors: Are you aware of any IPR that applies to this draft? If so, has it been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see BCP78 and BCP79 for more details)?  For any undisclosed IPR, please provide any additional information you think appropriate. If you are listed

Re: [spring] Dependency Issues (WAS: I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-bfd-09.txt)

On April 17, 2024 at 5:49:09 AM, Greg Mirsky wrote: Greg: > thank you for pointing out to me that although RFC 8402 defines the > Anycast-SID, that there's no Anycast-SID sub-TLV in the IANA registry > Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21.  Thus, we remove that paragraph and > references. Ok.  

Re: [spring] Dependency Issues (WAS: I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-bfd-09.txt)

On April 16, 2024 at 3:55:44 AM, Greg Mirsky wrote: Greg: ... > > > > (1) I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-anycast-segments ... > GIM2>> You're right; the IDR document does not define an Anycast SID (and has > no reference to the document that does, but that is not our problem now). > Could we use RFC 8402

Re: [spring] Dependency Issues (WAS: I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-bfd-09.txt)

On April 15, 2024 at 5:16:35 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: Greg: ... > > (1) I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-anycast-segments ... > > Before we try to revive it, is the reference needed? This paragraph > > is the only one that talks about anycast. Also, it sounds (from the > > last sentence) as if more could be

[spring] Dependency Issues (WAS: I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-bfd-09.txt)

On January 27, 2024 at 3:00:04 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: Greg/authors: Hi! > The draft is stable, and the authors believe that it is ready for the WG LC. > We appreciate your consideration of moving this work forward to the WG LC. I took a quick look at this document, and we need to address a

Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)

End of quoted email Thanks Andrew * Internal All Employees From: *Alvaro Retana *Date: *Wednesday, 3 April 2024 at 15:40 *To: *Andrew Alston - IETF , SPRING WG List < spring@ietf.org> *Cc: *spring-cha...@ietf.org *Subject: *Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (dra

Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)

On April 3, 2024 at 7:59:20 AM, Andrew Alston - IETF wrote: > Just a clarification – I believe my comments on section 6.5 have been well > documented in other threads – would you like them duplicated here for > clarity? Yes, we do. Thanks! Alvaro.

Re: [spring] Relationship between draft-cheng-spring-srv6-policy-resource-gurantee and draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments

On October 24, 2023 at 9:35:32 PM, 姜文颖 wrote: [Your reply had changed the subject, so my filters didn't catch it. :-(  Changing the subject back to the original.] Wenying: Hi! Following up from the discussion @ IETF 119. ... > > Do we need this new extension, or is > >

Re: [spring] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SIDs (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)

. Thanks! Alvaro. On March 28, 2024 at 8:06:18 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.i...@gmail.com) wrote: Focusing on the C-SID draft, some have suggested requiring the presence of the SRH whenever C-SIDs are used. Please discuss whether that is the desired behavior (or not) -- please be specific when

Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)

[Moving this message up on everyone’s mailbox.] Dear WG: We have received no replies to this request. If no changes are needed to §6.5 then that is ok, but if you have a different opinion please speak up. Thanks! Alvaro. On March 28, 2024 at 8:04:30 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.i...@gmail.com

[spring] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SIDs (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)

Focusing on the C-SID draft, some have suggested requiring the presence of the SRH whenever C-SIDs are used. Please discuss whether that is the desired behavior (or not) -- please be specific when debating the benefits or consequences of either behavior. Please keep the related (but independent)

[spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)

Section 6.5 of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression describes the behavior when an originating node inside an SRv6 domain creates a packet with a C-SID as the final destination. This description differs from the text in Section 8.1 of RFC8200. We plan to send the draft to the 6man WG for review

[spring] Separating Threads (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)

Dear WG: While the chairs strongly appreciate the engagement in the discussions around the SRv6 compression draft, several topics have gotten tangled, and the subject lines do not help track the conversation. Following this note will be two messages intended to serve as an anchor for separate

Re: [spring] [EXTERNAL] Re: Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11

Hi! This discussion has now moved beyond the specifics of this document (subject line) and spring's scope. Please move the discussion to a new thread where both spring and 6man are cc'd. Thanks! Alvaro. ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org

Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11

On March 18, 2024 at 10:49:39 AM, Francois Clad wrote: Francois: Hi!  Thanks for the update! > Detailed replies inline. These include your follow-up comments as well as the > review items that we missed in the first pass. > > Please let us know if you have any further feedback. I have some

Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11

Tom: Hi! I understand your point. I put the option out there because it came up at last week’s spring meeting and it should be discussed. Thanks! Alvaro. On March 25, 2024 at 2:58:48 PM, Tom Herbert (t...@herbertland.com) wrote: On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 11:17 AM Alvaro Retana wrote

Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11

FWIW, I agree with most of what Joel wrote. ;-) I see another path forward: Given that the issue is constrained to an SR domain, the draft could also point out the issues as operational/deployment considerations. Operators can then make an informed decision on whether they want to/can use C-SIDs

Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11

this document WITHOUT correct review by 6man will result in an appeal. Thanks Andrew * Internal All Employees From: *spring on behalf of Francois Clad *Date: *Monday, 18 March 2024 at 17:50 *To: *Alvaro Retana *Cc: *SPRING WG List *Subject: *Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call - draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection (02/09/24 - 02/24/24)

On March 4, 2024 at 6:46:33 AM, Huzhibo wrote: Zhibo: Hi! ... > ->HZB:rfc8754 or rfc8986 only defines that Processing is not changed by > this document. This is only a general description of the standard SRv6, not a > mandatory specification. rfc8754 and rfc8986 are the SRv6

Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11

On February 29, 2024 at 12:50:46 PM, Francois Clad wrote: Francois: Hi! > We have integrated those changes as part of revisions -12 and -13 of the > document. Please find our detailed replies inline. I have put comments below as well, and deleted any parts were we agree or no more discussion

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call - draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection (02/09/24 - 02/24/24)

Hi! Now that the terminology is a little more precise, I also looked at the document and found a couple of cases where SIDs are skipped by SRv6 segment endpoints, which is what Ketan is really concerned about (?). These cases (see below) do not align with rfc8754 or rfc8986. IMO, any proposed

[spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11

Dear authors: In parallel with the WGLC I have reviewed this document.  Thank you for the work you've put into it so far. I have several comments (in-line below) that I would like to see addressed.  In general, I think my comments should be relatively easy to address.  I want to highlight one

Re: [spring] Mail regarding draft-ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang

[Adding Shunwan explicitly because the message bounced.] On January 9, 2024 at 1:12:19 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.i...@gmail.com) wrote: Dear authors: I hope you're all doing well. This document expired in March/2023, but I haven't seen anything from you on the list since the last update

[spring] Mail regarding draft-ietf-spring-srv6-yang

Dear authors: I hope you're all doing well. This document expired in March/2023, but I haven't seen anything from you on the list since the last update. Are you still interested in proceeding with this work?  If so, please post an update with fewer front-page authors (5 maximum).  Also, please

[spring] Mail regarding draft-ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang

Dear authors: I hope you're all doing well. This document expired in March/2023, but I haven't seen anything from you on the list since the last update. Are you still interested in proceeding with this work?  If so, please post an update with fewer front-page authors (5 maximum).  Also, please

Re: [spring] Missing review material for the 15-minute slot for SRv6 Security Considerations (was: Re: SPRING Session Agenda for 118)

On November 2, 2023 at 5:25:37 AM, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote: Zafar: Hi! > It is odd that design team [1] has a 15-minute prime slot in SPRING agenda > while it has not produced any draft (see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2418.html#section-3.1). Let me start by saying that the authors of

Re: [spring] spring WG Adoption Call for draft-cheng-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-by-dhcp

). The submission window should open again during IETF 118. Thanks! Alvaro. On July 5, 2023 at 8:00:03 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.i...@gmail.com) wrote: Dear WG: This message starts a two-week adoption call for draft-cheng-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-by-dhcp, ending on July/19. It "desc

Re: [spring] IPR Poll for draft-cheng-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-by-dhcp (adoption)

Hi! We’re still missing a response to this poll from Geng Zhang (cc’d). Please reply so we can move on with this document. Thanks! Alvaro. On July 5, 2023 at 8:01:01 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.i...@gmail.com) wrote: Dear authors: Are you aware of any IPR that applies to this draft? Please

Re: [spring] Relationship betweendraft-cheng-spring-srv6-policy-resource-gurantee anddraft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments

On October 12, 2023 at 11:37:01 PM, 姜文颖 wrote: WenYing: Hi! > We received the similar comments before IETF 107 [1] and the authors of both > drafts had worked together to resolve it in the latest version. We has > clarified the scope in draft-cheng and has changed the name of the draft to >

[spring] Relationship between draft-cheng-spring-srv6-policy-resource-gurantee and draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments

Dear authors (of draft-cheng-spring-srv6-policy-resource-gurantee): Hi! Building on Jie's comments at IETF 115 [1] and this text from the Introduction: "On the basis of [I-D.ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments], this document defines a new SRv6 Endpoint behavior...", please clarify the

Re: [spring] Fw:New Version Notificationfordraft-cheng-spring-srv6-resource-programming-01.txt

WenYing: Hi! I have added this draft to the adoption queue in the WG’s wiki: https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/spring In the meantime, we would like to see more comments from the list. Also, the Security Considerations are empty. Please work on appropriate text. Thanks! Alvaro. On September

Re: [spring] Performance Measurement using STAMP for SR Merge (draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm + draft-gandhi-spring-enhanced-srpm)

Hi! No objections were received. The authors can go ahead with the merge. Thanks! Alvaro. On August 31, 2023 at 11:57:54 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.i...@gmail.com) wrote: Dear WG: As discussed at the WG meeting in San Francisco [1], the authors of draft-gandhi-spring-enhanced-srpm [2] have

[spring] SRv6 Security Considerations (author team)

Dear WG: We received a good set of volunteers to serve as authors in developing a document to provide a solid security analysis of SRv6 [1].  Thank you to all who volunteered! This is the team the chairs selected:   Nick Buraglio   Luis Contreras   Fernando Gont   Tal Mizrahi   Tian Tong

[spring] Performance Measurement using STAMP for SR Merge (draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm + draft-gandhi-spring-enhanced-srpm)

Dear WG: As discussed at the WG meeting in San Francisco [1], the authors of draft-gandhi-spring-enhanced-srpm [2] have requested merging the procedure defined there into draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm [3] [4]. There wasn't any objection to doing so during the meeting.  If anyone objects to the

[spring] Call for Authors: SRv6 Security Considerations

Dear WG: As mentioned at last week's meeting in San Francisco [1], the WG will produce a document to provide a solid security analysis of SRv6.  It will examine SRv6 as currently specified, identify threats, analyze mitigation mechanisms, and highlight gaps, but not propose solutions. The chairs

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

On August 2, 2023 at 1:59:13 AM, Tal Mizrahi wrote: Tal: Hi! > A question to the chairs: is the L4 checksum issue something that can > be resolved in SPRING, or does it have to go through 6MAN? If the resolution requires an update to rfc8200, 6man has to be involved.  This document (a spring

Re: [spring] SPRING Session Agenda for 117

[Thanks Shuping!] To all the authors/presenters: If your draft hasn’t had significant discussion on the list, please take time to share the proposal/updates *before* the meeting. Doing so should facilitate the conversation in San Francisco. Thanks! Alvaro. On July 11, 2023 at 11:31:39 PM,

[spring] IPR Poll for draft-cheng-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-by-dhcp (adoption)

Dear authors: Are you aware of any IPR that applies to this draft? Please state either:   "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft."     or    "Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft." If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see BCP78 and

[spring] spring WG Adoption Call for draft-cheng-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-by-dhcp

Dear WG: This message starts a two-week adoption call for draft-cheng-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-by-dhcp, ending on July/19. It "describes the method of assigning locators to SRv6 Endpoints through DHCPv6".     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheng-spring-distribute-srv6-locator-by-dhcp/

Re: [spring] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On March 5, 2022 at 5:29:36 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: Ketan: Hi! > We have also just posted an update to address some of the comments below and > from other ADs. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-19 That version addresses my DISCUSS -- I'm

Re: [spring] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On February 17, 2022 at 10:06:39 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: Ketan: Hi! I am looking at -18.  Thanks for adding the Updates tag -- you need to also add text to the Introduction about the update. Comments inline... > > -- >

[spring] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-17: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please

Re: [spring] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-29: (with COMMENT)

inline. Please let us know if you have more comments. Thanks, Yingzhen On Jan 20, 2021, at 7:36 AM, Alvaro Retana via Datatracker wrote: Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-29: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact

[spring] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-29: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-29: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

Re: [spring] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Thanks Pablo! I’m clearing my DISCUSS. Alvaro. On October 7, 2020 at 12:08:27 PM, Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) ( pcama...@cisco.com) wrote: Note that we have just posted rev24 as per the comments below. ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org

Re: [spring] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On September 30, 2020 at 9:18:37 AM, Pablo Camarillo wrote: Pablo: Hi! Just leaving below the points I still want to talk about. Thanks! Alvaro. ... > > -- > > DISCUSS: > >

Re: [spring] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On September 25, 2020 at 2:28:53 PM, Pablo Camarillo wrote: Pablo: Hi! I still have a couple of comments related to the DISCUSS portion.  And some non-blocking comments later on. I looked at -22. Thanks! Alvaro. > -- >

[spring] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-20: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however

Re: [spring] Appeal to the IESG re WGLC of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

On June 3, 2020 at 1:16:48 AM, Fernando Gont wrote: Fernando: Hi!  How are you? ... > Note: I fail to see your analysis regarding technical objection #3: Your > analysis focuses on RFC8200 (the focus of technical objection #2), but > doesn't even mention RFC8754 (the relevant RFC for

[spring] Automated Disclaimers (RE: Request to close…)

On March 2, 2020 at 1:21:25 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: [Changed the subject to better reflect the topic and for easier tracking.] SM: Hi!  How are you? > I sent a message to the SPRING Working Group Chairs. The reply which > I received from a person who is listed as one of the SPRING Working >

Re: [spring] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) (draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions / draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-exten

On April 10, 2019 at 5:46:56 PM, Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) (martin.vigour...@nokia.com) wrote: Martin: Hi! It looks to me that you don’t disagree with what is written in the draft but rather with the fact that the draft may suggest that IGPs should do things which are in fact

[spring] Fwd: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) (draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions / draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-exte

, Alvaro Retana via Datatracker ( nore...@ietf.org) wrote: -- DISCUSS: -- (1) This first point is a cross-document DISCUSS. In short, the assumptions in this document

[spring] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-19: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please

Re: [spring] Last Call: (BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing BGP Egress Peer Engineering) to Proposed Standard

FYI... On April 3, 2019 at 12:30:39 PM, The IESG (iesg-secret...@ietf.org) wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Inter-Domain Routing WG (idr) to consider the following document: - 'BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing BGP Egress Peer Engineering' as Proposed Standard The IESG

Re: [spring] Error Handling for BGP-LS with Segment Routing

On January 8, 2019 at 9:33:49 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com ( bruno.decra...@orange.com) wrote: Bruno: Hi! But I’m wondering why error handling is that specific to BGP-LS. It is just in this thread... Why is that point not been raised on, let’s say,

Re: [spring] Error Handling for BGP-LS with Segment Routing

On January 4, 2019 at 3:48:38 PM, Rob Shakir (ro...@google.com) wrote: The alternative approach is to have an "Operational Considerations" section of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext that simply points out this consideration. i.e., something like: We would need something like it in

Re: [spring] Error Handling for BGP-LS with Segment Routing

On January 3, 2019 at 5:40:23 PM, Rob Shakir (ro...@google.com) wrote: Describing these compromises is, of course, a good idea. However, it's not clear where this description would go -- we don't really have a document that describes this overall system and how it might be implemented today

Re: [spring] Error Handling for BGP-LS with Segment Routing

Rob: Hi! I don’t think I said it before: speaking as a WG participant... I want to pick up on a point you make below, which I agree with: "any topology discovery mechanism (whether used in real-time or not) needs to define how it handles cases where it might end up with missing information”….

Re: [spring] Error Handling for BGP-LS with Segment Routing

On December 18, 2018 at 6:23:19 PM, Robert Raszuk (rras...@gmail.com) wrote: Robert: Hi! What comes as #1 question to your points is a comparison of SR controller with regular BGP RR. I think it is safe to assume that error handling on SR controller would be no more aggressive then on RRs. So

Re: [spring] Error Handling for BGP-LS with Segment Routing

On December 18, 2018 at 6:10:21 PM, bruno.decra...@orange.com ( bruno.decra...@orange.com) wrote: Bruno: Hi! 1) shouldn’t BGP-LS error handling be also discussed in the LSVR WG? https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-03#section-5.7 does not seem to cover this. And this

[spring] Error Handling for BGP-LS with Segment Routing

Dear idr and spring WGs: tl;dr I don't think that BGP-LS, with error handling as specified ("attribute discard"), can provide the robustness that an application (like SR), with direct impact on the forwarding in the network, needs. [Jump to the bottom for discussion.] The BGP-LS extensions

Re: [spring] [Tsv-art] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-08

On October 29, 2018 at 11:34:13 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) ( i...@kuehlewind.net) wrote: Hi! FWIW, I agree with Mirja and her proposal below. Not only does it sound like this Informational document is talking about items that should be out of scope, but the first paragraph in §7 says that it

Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Ahmed: Ping!! We’re really close… Alvaro. On July 26, 2018 at 4:27:25 PM, Benjamin Kaduk (ka...@mit.edu) wrote: Hi Ahmed, Thanks for posting the update (and sorry for only getting to it now). The two specific points I raised in my DISCUSS ballot are properly addressed, but before I go clear

Re: [spring] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-08

Thanks Martin! On June 6, 2018 at 3:14:45 PM, Martin Stiemerling (mls.i...@gmail.com) wrote: Hi Alvaro, all, Thanks for addressing my concerns. This version is good to go from my side. Kind regards, ;Martin Am 30.05.18 um 21:55 schrieb Alvaro Retana: > Martin: > br/>> Hi!!

Re: [spring] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-08

Martin: Hi! How are you? Gaurav just posted a revision. Please take a look and let us know if the changes address your concerns or not. https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-09 Thanks!! Alvaro. On May 25, 2018 at 12:08:46 PM, Gaurav Dawra

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-09

On April 11, 2018 at 10:22:46 PM, Ahmed Bashandy (abashandy.i...@gmail.com) wrote: Ahmed: Hi! How are you? I still have a couple of comments below…but nothing that should hold up process at this point. I’ll start the IETF Last Call. Thanks! Alvaro. M2.1.2. "At least one SRMS MUST be

Re: [spring] IETF 101 minutes

Correct link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/minutes-101-spring-00 :-) On April 16, 2018 at 10:21:00 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com ( bruno.decra...@orange.com) wrote: Hi all, Minutes have been uploaded.

Re: [spring] TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-08

[Adding Mirja to this thread, since she is the AD holding the DISCUSS on this document.] Mirja: Hi! Please take a look at the thread below — I still haven’t seen a reply from Martin. Thanks! Alvaro. On March 9, 2018 at 7:23:28 AM, Gaurav Dawra (gdawra.i...@gmail.com) wrote: Hi, Martin,

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-09

Dear authors: I just saw the refresh of this draft posted (to -10) — there were no changes in it, or an answer to this message. It has now been more than 3 months. Is there a plan to at least respond to the comments? Thanks! Alvaro. On December 20, 2017 at 7:36:54 PM, Alvaro Retana

[spring] Fwd: [PANRG] PAN(P)RG Agenda for IETF101

FYI… There is a presentation on Segment Routing in the agenda. Alvaro. On March 8, 2018 at 10:13:48 AM, Brian Trammell (IETF) (i...@trammell.ch) wrote: Greetings, all, I've posted a draft meeting agenda for PAN(P)RG at IETF 101 at

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-12.txt

Dear authors: I still haven’t seen a satisfactory reply to my AD Review of this document [1]. The latest version doubled (!) the size of the document (between versions -10 and -12)[2] without proper justification, or (more importantly!) discussion on the list. I am returning the document to the

[spring] New spring WG Co-Chair

Dear spring WG: As all of you already know, Martin has been selected as a Routing AD starting next month at IETF 101 in London. He will step down as spring co-chair then. Martin: thank you for the focused effort you have dedicated to this WG — we all look forward to working with you in your new

Re: [spring] SPRING WG

Gaurav: First of all, thank you for your eagerness to serve! Dear WG: As I’m sure everyone already knows, Martin has been selected by the nomcom to serve as Routing Area Director [1]. He will start his new job during IETF 101. Yes, Martin will not continue as spring co-Chair once he becomes

Re: [spring] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-13: (with DISCUSS)

y 12, 2018 10:58 AM > To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com> > Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; The IESG > <i...@ietf.org>; spring@ietf.org; spring-cha...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring- > segment-rout...@ietf.org; martin.vigour...@nokia.com > Subject: Re: Kath

Re: [spring] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-13: (with DISCUSS)

Kathleen: Hi! Any thoughts on the update to this document? Thanks! Alvaro. On December 20, 2017 at 6:42:02 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ( ginsb...@cisco.com) wrote: Kathleen - Thanx for the review. V14 has been published and it attempts to address the Security concerns raised by you and

Re: [spring] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alissa: Hi! Any thoughts on the update to this document? Thanks! Alvaro. On December 20, 2017 at 6:18:13 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ( ginsb...@cisco.com) wrote: Alissa - Thanx for the review. V14 has been published and it attempts to address the Security concerns raised by you and others.

[spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-09

Dear authors: I just finished reading this document. I have some Major comments below that I would like to see addressed before starting the IETF LC. Thanks for your work on this document. Alvaro. Major: M1. From Section 2: "An MCC, operating at node N, MUST ensure that the incoming label

Re: [spring] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-11: (with COMMENT)

On December 14, 2017 at 7:35:10 AM, Mirja Kühlewind (i...@kuehlewind.net) wrote: Mirja: Hi! Minor question regarding SPRING in Core networks (section 2.5): Why is SR here bettter than MPLS (which I guess is used today for this use case)? In

Re: [spring] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-13: (with COMMENT)

On December 13, 2017 at 9:58:42 AM, Adam Roach (a...@nostrum.com) wrote: Adam: Hi! Thanks to everyone who put in work on this document. I do note that the list of authors is over the five-author recommended limit. I checked both the ballot and the shepherd write-up, and was a little surprised

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-10

Ahmed: Hi! It’s been almost a month, and I haven’t seen a reply from you. I will send the document back to the WG by the end of this week. Thanks! Alvaro. On November 2, 2017 at 6:49:10 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.i...@gmail.com) wrote: On October 30, 2017 at 2:12:18 PM, Ahmed Bashandy

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-12

Les: Hi! I don’t think I got a reply on the IPR question below. Thanks! Alvaro. On November 1, 2017 at 3:55:00 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.i...@gmail.com) wrote: Les: Hi! Apologies for the long delay in responding. The transference of the pen from Stefano resulted in a longer delay than

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-06

On October 30, 2017 at 1:53:07 AM, Gaurav Dawra (gdawra) (gda...@cisco.com) wrote: Gaurav: Hi! Thanks for taking over this document! I have some remaining comments below, please take a look. I’m starting the IETF Last Call, which will be extended to account for the IETF meeting and the US

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-10

On October 30, 2017 at 2:12:18 PM, Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy) ( basha...@cisco.com ) wrote: Ahmed: Hi! How are you? ... The main questions/concerns that I have related to this document is not just for the authors, but for the Shepherd and the Chairs too. Q1. Why is this document on the

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-12

On November 2, 2017 at 7:59:31 AM, stefano previdi (stef...@previdi.net) wrote: Stefano: Hi! > I would also strongly recommend that you include a Deployment/Operations Section. what exactly would you expect to find in such section ? We have the Manageability section which illustrates how SR

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-12

On October 28, 2017 at 10:51:52 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ( ginsb...@cisco.com ) wrote: Les: Hi! Apologies for the long delay in responding. The transference of the pen from Stefano resulted in a longer delay than it should have. Thanks for taking this on! As a new author: are you aware of

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-12

behalf of Alvaro Retana <aret...@cisco.com> Date: Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 3:00 PM To: "draft-ietf-spring-segment-rout...@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-spring-segment-rout...@ietf.org> Cc: "spring-cha...@ietf.org" <spring-cha...@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org&quo

[spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-05

Dear authors: I just finished reading this document. Thanks for a clear and straight forward draft! I have some comments (see below). The main one is about the inclusion of hosts as defining the source routed path, without them being explicitly called out in the

[spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-06

Dear authors: I just finished reading this document. I have a couple of Major concerns (see below) which I would like to see addressed before starting the IETF Last Call on this document. Thanks!! Alvaro. Major: M1. This document mentions in several places that the segment routing

Re: [spring] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-10

Adrian: No, it isn’t your review. We’re forwarding the use case documents along with the Architecture to the IESG at the same time – we’re waiting for that last document. Thanks! Alvaro. On 8/26/17, 5:42 AM, "Adrian Farrel" wrote: As I said in my review, I think this

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-10

On 8/24/17, 4:44 PM, "Martin Vigoureux" wrote: Martin: Hi! > speaking as Shepherd. > Regarding Q1: Indeed, Section 2 is the core of the document, and in > my view the section containing what is worth standardizing. What, exactly, is this document standardizing?

  1   2   >