Hi Alvaro,
I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
Best regards,
Mach
> -Original Message-
> From: Alvaro Retana
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 11:40 PM
> To: draft-ietf-spring-...@ietf.org
> Cc: SPRING WG List ; spring-cha...@ietf.org
> Subject: IPR Disclosures for
Hi,
I have read the draft and been following this discussion of SRH compression.
Since the WG has agreed to address the SRH compression issue, the draft
proposes a reasonable way to do that, and the quality of the document is above
the average, IMHO.
Therefore, I support the adoption of the
Typos
s/unclosed/undisclosed
Best regards,
Mach
> -Original Message-
> From: Mach Chen
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 10:38 AM
> To: 'Joel M. Halpern' ; spring@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [spring] Error / Calls regarding adoption of
> draft-ietf-spring-sr-red
Hi Joel,
I am not aware of any unclosed IPR that applies to the document.
Best regards,
Mach
> -Original Message-
> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 8:08 PM
> To: spring@ietf.org
> Subject: [spring] Error /
Hi Jim,
I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR related to this document.
Best regards,
Mach
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Guichard
Sent: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 11:49 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WGLC for
Hi Jim,
I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR relevant to this document.
Best regards,
Mach
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Guichard
Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 11:08 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WG adoption call completion
Yes, support.
Best regards,
Mach
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Guichard
Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 8:34 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for
Hi,
I have read the document, it provides a practical approach to build resource
guaranteed virtual transport networks based on resource-aware SIDs. I think
it's useful and hence support the adoption of the document.
Best regards,
Mach
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Hi Jim,
I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this document.
Best regards,
Mach
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Guichard
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 10:57 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call Concluded for
Hi Tianran, Rakesh and Greg,
Please see some responses inline with [Mach]...
From: ippm [mailto:ippm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tianran Zhou
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 1:33 PM
To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) ; Greg Mirsky
Cc: spring ; IPPM Chairs ;
spring-cha...@ietf.org; Tommy Pauly ;
Hi,
Support as co-author.
Best regards,
Mach
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Guichard
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 1:39 AM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-li-spring-srv6-path-segment
Dear WG:
Support the adoption (as co-author).
Best regards,
Mach
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Guichard
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 8:52 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: ippm-cha...@ietf.org; spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for
Support the adoption (as co-author).
Best regards,
Mach
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Guichard
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 8:52 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: ippm-cha...@ietf.org; spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for
+1, I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this document.
Best regards,
Mach
From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 5:45 AM
To: spring-cha...@ietf.org; spring ;
draft-mirsky-spring-...@ietf.org; Greg Mirsky
Subject: Re: IPR related to
Hi Joel,
I think this is a good point that may not be discussed in the past. And I also
don't think there is a "can be bypassed" indication in the routing
advertisement for now.
IMHO, the information advertised by routing is neutral, such information (can
or cannot be bypassed) is more path
Hi,
I have read several versions of this draft, I think this is a useful work,
hence support the adoption!
One comment about the draft, it's better to decouple this draft a bit from
network slicing, since it can be as a basic function that can not only be used
for network slicing, but be used
Hi,
I have read the draft, it's an important building block of SRv6, support the
adoption.
Best regards,
Mach
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Guichard
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 11:38 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WG
Hi,
If you follow the discussions of the past several months, you should know that
CRH is the foundation of SRm6. In my understanding, SRm6 is another IPv6 based
Segment Routing, it was originally motivated to address the SRH header compress
issue.
Technically, SRm6 works (it has the same
. IMHO, this would
be useful in the context of networking slicing, Deterministic networking, etc.
Thanks,
Mach
From: Dongjie (Jimmy)
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 10:38 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein ; Mach Chen
Cc: draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-...@ietf.org; Joel M. Halpern
; qinfengwei ; 'SPRING
Hi,
Is the "resource allocation" performed only on the controller? If so, sounds
like a virtual resource reservation, or somehow it is more accurate to call it
resource planning. In this case, the interoperability issues may not be the
most concerns. The problem is how to guarantee the
Hi,
Given there are more and more on-going implementations and interoperate
testing, I think it's better to allocate the necessary code points asap.
Hence, I support the Early Allocation request.
Best regards,
Mach
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Hi,
It’s useful draft, support the adoption!
Best regards,
Mach
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rob Shakir
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 2:14 PM
To: SPRING WG List
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call: draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming
Hi SPRING WG,
This
Hi,
I have read the draft and think it’s a useful document.
Support the adoption!
Best regards,
Mach
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rob Shakir
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 2:14 PM
To: SPRING WG List
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call: draft-guichard-spring-nsh-sr
Hi,
Yes/support.
This is the fundamental document of SRv6, I have read several versions of this
draft, it becomes more stable and mature. I think it's ready for WG adoption.
Best regards,
Mach
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent:
+1
Best regards,
Mach
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 5:21 AM
> To: i...@ietf.org
> Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-m...@ietf.org;
> spring@ietf.org;
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for your support and the comments!
The comments will be addressed in future version.
Best regards,
Mach
From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 12:51 AM
To: SPRING WG ; bruno.decra...@orange.com
Cc:
Hi Bruno & Rob,
I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this document.
Best regards,
Mach
> -Original Message-
> From: bruno.decra...@orange.com [mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 5:02 PM
> To: SPRING WG ; Jeff Tantsura ;
>
ppreciated
Best regards,
Mach
> -Original Message-
> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 9:56 AM
> To: Rakesh Gandhi ; Weiqiang Cheng
> ; Lei Wang
> ; Royi Zigler ;
> Shuangping Zhan ; Mach Chen
> ; Han Li ; Mach
Hi Rakesh,
It looks good to me.
Best regards,
Mach
From: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) [mailto:rgan...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 8:37 PM
To: Mach Chen
Cc: i...@ietf.org; spring
Subject: Re: New Draft draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm
Thanks Mach for the comments. We will add following
Hi Authors,
The draft-li-pce-sr-path-segment and draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment
define the notion of path segment identifier. Could you please consider adding
some text in draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm and draft-gandhi-spring-sr-mpls-pm and
how it is applicable to performance measurement
Hi Authors,
The draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm-01 defines a new C flag as following:
3.1.2.1. Loss Measurement Flags
An LM message carries Data Format Flags (DFlags) as defined in
[RFC6374]. New Flag is defined in this document for Color (C) in the
DFlags field as follows.
with it, but I will let others to express their points.
Best regards,
Mach
From: Alexander Vainshtein [mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 3:36 PM
To: draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment.auth...@ietf.org; Mach Chen
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: A question about Path
Hi Sasha,
Thanks for your valuable question!
Since a Path Segment is just designed to identify an SR path, if the Path
Segment label is the BoS label, the network protocol of the packet should be
the same as the one implied by the last label of the SR path. That means, no
matter through
Hi Loa,
I am not aware of any IPR related to this document.
Best regards,
Mach
> -Original Message-
> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 6:15 PM
> To: m...@ietf.org
> Cc: spring@ietf.org; mpls-cha...@ietf.org;
Hi all,
I completely agree with Ali and Martin here, OAM is very important tool for a
technology to be deployed in a production network, we see more and more
requirements in this area. I support the idea to add the OAM milestone to the
new charter.
Best regards,
Mach
发件人：Zafar Ali (zali)
model (e.g., PCEP) seems more suitable. How do you think?
Best regards,
Mach
> -Original Message-
> From: Alexander Vainshtein [mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 7:30 PM
> To: Mach Chen <mach.c...@huawei.com>
> Cc: spring@i
Hi Sasha,
Many thanks for your valuable comments!
Please see my responses inline...
>
> From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexander
> Vainshtein
> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 9:44 PM
> To: draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segm...@ietf.org
> Cc: spring@ietf.org; Shell
Hi Loa,
The draft is useful, support to move it forward.
Best regards,
Mach
> -Original Message-
> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> Sent: Friday, December 08, 2017 9:17 PM
> To: m...@ietf.org
> Cc: spring@ietf.org; mpls-cha...@ietf.org;
Hi Stewart,
Indeed, the same idea can apply to both MPLS-SR and MPLS-LDP. For now, the
requirements that I heard are from MPLS-SR.
Best regards,
Mach
From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 10:45 AM
To: Mach Chen; stephane.litkow...@orange.com
l...@ericsson.com>> wrote:
I’d rephrase this to be a bit more solution agnostic….
1. Is E2E PM required. (and this can only be achieved with pairwise
measurement points).
2. Are transit measurement points required as well…..
BTW transmit measurement points without e2e me
Hi Stephane,
If you want to do transit measurement, you have to pay some cost. The
difference is how large the cost is, one, two or multiple labels.
For E2E measurement, it could be much easier. A single label (could be local or
global) is inserted immediately follow the last label of the SR
Hi Stephane,
If you want to do transit measurement, you have to pay some cost. The
difference is how large the cost is, one, two or multiple labels.
For E2E measurement, it could be much easier and simpler. A single label (could
be local or global, as proposed in
Hi all,
I agree with Sasha and Greg here!
I think the first thing we need to agree on the requirements, then discuss the
solution will make more sense. I would ask the following questions:
1. Is only E2E PM needed for MPLS-SR?
2. Is only SPME PM needed for MPLS-SR?
3. Are
To: Mach Chen; Zafar Ali (zali); Greg Mirsky;
draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths; mpls; spring
Subject: RE: [spring] Special purpose labels in
draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths
The beauty of MPLS-SR is less states are required. To keep it as beautiful as
possible
Yes, counting at transit LSR is normally treated an on-demand function, means
you could turn it on/off when needed.
Best regards,
Mach
From: Shah, Himanshu [mailto:hs...@ciena.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 11:35 AM
To: Mach Chen; Zafar Ali (zali); Greg Mirsky;
draft-hegde-spring
Hi Zafar,
Given that SR supports SID Binding, states only maintained at ingress is not
very true.
Best regards,
Mach
From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zafar Ali (zali)
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 2:24 AM
To: Greg Mirsky;
I totally agree with Jeff here.
Remember that several WGs in IETF are working on performance measurement, and
even there is a dedicated PM WG (IPPM).
I am not sure SR is an exception.
Best regards,
Mach
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
Sent: Thursday,
Hi Roberta,
IMHO, from path identification point of view, they are similar. Binding
Segment is used to identify a path at the ingress LSR of the path, the Path
segment is expected to be used to identify a path at the egress LSR or
intermediate LSRs.
In addition, the Binding Segment will be
Hi Adrian and others,
I agree with Adrian, indeed, the YANG work should be in a separate document.
And it should include at two parts IMHO, one is as Mahesh mentioned, using the
YANG model to retrieve the counting data, the other would be to use YANG for
configuration, for example, to enable
Hi Loa,
I am not aware of any IPR related to this document.
Best regards,
Mach
> -Original Message-
> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:l...@pi.nu]
> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 3:39 PM
> To: m...@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-p...@ietf.org; mpls-cha...@ietf.org;
> spring@ietf.org
It’s a very clear statement and reasonable. I support this.
Best regards,
Mach
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg
(ginsberg)
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 5:06 AM
To: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Cc: spring@ietf.org; Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
Subject: Re:
51 matches
Mail list logo
