[spring] FW: Personnel change for spring WG

As presented at the meeting: Orange Restricted -Original Message- From: IETF Secretariat Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023 7:28 AM To: aretana.i...@gmail.com; iesg-secret...@ietf.org; james.n.guich...@futurewei.com; pengshup...@huawei.com; spring-cha...@ietf.org Subject: Personnel change

Re: [spring] WG adoption call - draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding

Dear WG, A year ago, we initiated a call for adoption on draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding [proxy-forwarding]. The summary of the technical points of the discussion has been summarized on the list [1], in particular on the two following aspects: a) the protection/FRR part (from

Re: [spring] [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing Header encapsulation for Alternate Marking Method

Hi Giuseppe, Please see inline [Bruno] Orange Restricted From: spring On Behalf Of Giuseppe Fioccola Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 12:34 PM To: Greg Mirsky ; Joel Halpern Cc: SPRING WG List ; 6man Subject: Re: [spring] [IPv6] WG Adoption call for Segment Routing Header encapsulation for

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

Hi Rishabh, authors Speaking as an individual contributor. Following a request, I've done a review of the latest version of the draft. Please find below some proposed comments. -- As a general comment, may be this draft could be better restricted to the SR-replication segment itself, leaving

Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-te-paths

Shraddha, Thanks for the reply and the discussion. Please see inline [Bruno2] Orange Restricted From: Shraddha Hegde Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 6:21 AM To: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET ; SPRING WG Subject: RE: draft-ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-te-paths Bruno, Thanks for the review

[spring] FW:  WG LC: Export of Segment Routing over IPv6 Information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)

Hi all, FYI :

[spring] draft-ietf-spring-segment-protection-sr-te-paths

[speaking as individual contributor] Hi Shraddha, all, Please find below comments on section 5 (IGP hold timer for protecting traffic to failed node) Following my previous comments on -02, thank you for the updated text in -03. The current solution is based on a modification of the SPF

Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang-01

Hi Kamran, authors, Thanks for the refreshed draft. What's the status/ETA with regards to incorporating comments from the WG, e.g. the ones below from Dhruv which are two years/revisions old. Thank you, Bruno From: spring On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 6:00 AM To:

Re: [spring] Fwd: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07

Ping authors Thanks, --Bruno Orange Restricted -Original Message- From: spring On Behalf Of julien.meu...@orange.com Sent: Friday, September 9, 2022 2:10 PM To: spring@ietf.org Cc: p...@ietf.org Subject: [spring] Fwd: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07 Hi

[spring] FW: Progressing BFD in SR-MPLS work

Forwarding the below email to the SPRING WG as it's very relevant to the WG. From: Greg Mirsky Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 10:42 PM To: spring-cha...@ietf.org; MPLS Working Group Cc: draft-ietf-spring-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-direc...@ietf.org Subject: Progressing BFD in SR-MPLS

[spring] draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi Andrew, WG, FYI, I have just updated the shepherd write up [1] with the following two modifications: - change of AD in the Personnel section (from Martin to Andrew) - updating section 7 (IPR disclosures from authors) to reflect the recent email from Syed [2] --Bruno [1]

Re: [spring] IPR call for draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Thank you Syed and Zafar. This email also serves as resending Syed's email on the SPRING WG as, for some reason, I could not find the original email in the public archive. --Bruno From: Syed Hassan Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 3:30 PM To: Zafar Ali (zali) Cc: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET ;

Re: [spring] WG adoption for draft-boutros-spring-elan-services-over-sr-00

Hi Sami, < Abstract This document proposes a new approach for realizing Ethernet LAN (ELAN) services > BESS : BGP Enabled Services https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-bess/ SPRING : Source Packet Routing in Networking https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-spring/ We

Re: [spring] WG adoption for draft-boutros-spring-elan-services-over-sr-00

[+bess chairs] Dear Sami, authors, SPRING and BESS chairs believe this work would be better addressed in the BESS WG. Thanks, Regards, --Bruno, Jim, Joel Orange Restricted From: Boutros, Sami Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 6:23 PM To: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET ; James Guichard ; Joel Halpern

[spring] FW: Tags changed for draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding

Orange Restricted -Original Message- From: IETF Secretariat Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 12:23 PM To: draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forward...@ietf.org; spring-cha...@ietf.org Subject: Tags changed for draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding The tags on

Re: [spring] WG adoption call - draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding

Dear WG, Thank you for all comments received during this WG last call and for the detailed review of the document. In term of requirement, there is support for the need to protect SR-Policy traffic from node failure both: a) for the protection/FRR duration (from failure detection to the start

Re: [spring] Re： Re: IPR poll - draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding

: [spring] IPR poll - draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding Hi Bruno, I have replied about a month ago. Please check the exported mail in the attached files. Best Regards Yisong 发件人: bruno.decraene<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com> 时间: 2022/02/19(星期六)01:12 收件人: draft-hu-spring-s

Re: [spring] IPR poll - draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding

Hi authors, If I'm not mistaken, we received a reply from: * Re: [spring] IPR poll - draft-hu-spring-segment-r... Huaimo Chen * Re: [spring] IPR poll -

Re: [spring] WG adoption call - draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding

[speaking as WG contributor] Hi Huaimo, Thanks for the follow up. Please see one point inline [Bruno] Orange Restricted From: spring On Behalf Of Huaimo Chen Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 2:48 AM To: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET ; draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forward...@ietf.org

Re: [spring] WG adoption call - draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding

[Speaking as individual contributor.] Shraddha, Many thanks for your replies. Some minor follow up inline [Bruno] Orange Restricted From: Shraddha Hegde Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 5:09 AM To: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET ; slitkows.i...@gmail.com; 'SPRING WG' ; Huzhibo Subject: RE:

Re: [spring] WG adoption call - draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding

[speaking as WG contributor] Hi authors, all I have some comments specific to the binding SID aspect. §2 " For a binding segment of a possible failed node, the node advertises the information about the binding segment, including the binding SID and the list of SIDs associated with the

Re: [spring] WG adoption call - draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding

Hi authors of both documents, WG, [Speaking as individual contributor.] It's good to see technical discussions on the restoration of failed SIDs used by SR policy. 1. From a functional point of view, can we summarize the benefit to signal the node proxy capability? e.g. - drop the traffic

[spring] WG adoption call - draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding

Dear WG, This message starts a 2 week WG adoption call, ending 27/01/2022, for draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding/ After review of the document please indicate support (or not) for WG adoption of

[spring] IPR poll - draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding

Hi authors, contributors, WG In preparation of the WG adoption call on draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding [1], this email starts a poll for IPR. If you are an author or contributor to the subject document, please respond to this email. * In your response, please indicate if

[spring] draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi authors, Following yet another reading, please find below one proposed comment. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr#section-5.2 "the processing is the same as that specified by [RFC8754]

[spring] FW: Agenda for 6MAN session at IETF 112

Hi all, Some items of the 6MAN WG agenda may be of interest to the SPRING WG. In particular " SID & IPv6 addressing, Erik Kline (AD), Suresh Krishnan, 20 min." Please consider attending. --Bruno Orange Restricted -Original Message- From: ipv6 On Behalf Of Bob Hinden Sent: Friday,

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

Kireeti, all, Being a co-author of draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression, I recuse myself from assessing the WG consensus on this document. --Bruno Orange Restricted From: spring On Behalf Of Kireeti Kompella Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 9:56 PM To: James Guichard Cc: Kireeti

[spring] FW: IPR declaration for draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment

From: Greg Mirsky Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 5:47 PM To: James Guichard Cc: liu.ai...@zte.com.cn; royi.zig...@broadcom.com; spring-cha...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segm...@ietf.org Subject: Re: IPR declaration for draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment Dear All, I am not aware of

[spring] FW: IPR Disclosure Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression

Orange Restricted -Original Message- From: IETF Secretariat Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 4:15 PM To: draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compress...@ietf.org Cc: ipr-annou...@ietf.org Subject: IPR Disclosure Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to

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

Thanks for the review and feedback. There is a large support to adopt those two drafts. Authors, please republish the two drafts as draft-ietf-spring-compression-requirement/analysis. And then address the comment as per WG discussions. Thanks. --Jim, Bruno & Joel From: spring

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

Ron, It looks to me that you are quite well aware of the whole IETF process; but if not [1] may be a good starting pointer. This WG adoption call is not expected to be any different than other WG adoption calls. You are right that WG adoption of a document means that the WG own the document

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

Dear WG, The Design Team has produced two documents: - A requirement document: draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-requirement - A solution analysis document: draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis Both have been presented to the WG and triggered some discussions but are still individual

Re: [spring] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-08

Dave, Thank you for your review, especially this close to IETF deadlines/meeting. Authors, please have a look at the editorial comments and update the draft as needed. --Bruno > -Original Message- > From: Dave Thaler via Datatracker [mailto:nore...@ietf.org] > Sent: Wednesday, July

Re: [spring] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-07

Mike, Thank you for your review. Authors, Please reply to the review. --Bruno > -Original Message- > From: Mike McBride via Datatracker [mailto:nore...@ietf.org] > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2021 10:56 PM > To: rtg-...@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org >

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi Jim, Thanks for the latest version and your replies. Please see inline [Bruno2] As an aside, I'm waiting for the reviews from the RTG and INT directorate. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr/history/ In the meantime, I'm initiated the shepherd write up. From: James

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi Jim, Thanks for your reply. Please see inline [Bruno] From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Guichard Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 5:13 PM To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN ; spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-spring-nsh...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] WG Last Call

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi authors, Jim, > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-05 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-05 Thanks for the updated -05. -05 addresses my latest comment and I believe the comment

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi authors, As a friendly remainder, during WG LC some questions and comments have been raised. Please resolve the point raised and update the draft as needed. Thanks, Bruno From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021

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

Hi Jim, I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR to this document. --Bruno From: James Guichard [mailto:james.n.guich...@futurewei.com] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 12:34 PM To: SPRING WG Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org Subject: IPR Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy Hi Authors,

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi authors, SPRING, Speaking as shepherd. Encapsulation of NSH following SRv6 may be indicated either by encapsulating NSH in UDP (UDP port TBA1) and indicating UDP in the Next Header field of the SRH, or by indicating an IP protocol number for NSH in the Next Header of the SRH." Yes,

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Dear WG, We received very few support and review so far: two reviews excluding the authors and including the shepherd. Thanks Greg for the review. To allow for more feedback, the WG last call is extended for two weeks until March 18. In the meantime, authors are invited to reply to the

[spring] FW: IPR call for draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Dear SFC WG, The SPRING WG is starting a working group last call for draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr. [1] This document describes the integration of Network Service Header (NSH) [RFC8300] and Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8402], as well as encapsulation details, to support Service Function Chaining (SFC)

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi authors, WG, Speaking as the shepherd. Thanks for the -04 which answer my previous set of comments. I've reviewed the document again, focusing on the new text. Please find below some additional comments. === SR-MPLS §6.1 " At the end of the SR-MPLS path it is necessary to provide an

[spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Dear WG, This message starts a 2 weeks WG last call for draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr [1]. After review of the document please indicate whether you believe this document should be progressed to the IESG. In addition to yes/no, please consider providing a technical review of this document; in

[spring] IPR call for draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi authors, contributors, WG Authors of draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr have asked for WG last call. In preparation of the WGLC on draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr [1], this email starts a poll for IPR. If you are aware of IPR that applies to draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr please respond to this email and keep the

[spring] draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi authors, WG, Authors of draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr have asked for WG last call. Before initiating it, I've done a review of the draft as document shepherd. Please find below some comments. --- It's not crystal clear to me what the scope and the goal of the document are. - From the

Re: [spring] Small SID/Compressed SID Design Team

Hi Gyan, From: Gyan Mishra [mailto:hayabusa...@gmail.com] SID Design Team Hi Jim, Bruno & Joel I was wondering if it would be possible to provide a brief synopsis or debriefing of where we stand thus far with deliberations on Small SID / Compression SID design team results. I think that

Re: [spring] WG adoption call for draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths

Hi Shraddha, Thanks for your reply. Please see inline [Bruno] [/Bruno] From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shraddha Hegde Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 1:43 PM To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN ; draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-pa...@ietf.org Cc: spring@ietf.org

Re: [spring] WG adoption call for draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths

Hi authors, SPRING WG. There is support for this Informational document and no blocking objections so we have a new WG document. Authors, please resubmit as a WG document. In the next (-01) revision, please include a section (or at least text) discussing to the applicability of the protection

Re: [spring] WG adoption call for draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths

Hi authors, all, As an individual contributor, I have two non-blocking comments. 1) I feel that the terminology “node protection” in the name of the draft could be misleading. “Node Protection” is already used in [LFA] and [RLFA]. It refers to a property of the alternate path avoiding

Re: [spring] to drop or to forward unlabelled (Re: Question on RFC8660)

Hi Martin, > From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin > Horneffer > > Hello everyone, > > may I come back the the question below? Or rather let me update it a little: > > In case an SR-MPLS path is broken, should a node rather drop the packet, > or forward it? > > This

[spring] IPR call for draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths

Hi Authors, SPRING WG, Authors of draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths [1] have asked for WG adoption. This email starts a poll for IPR. If you are aware of IPR that applies to draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths please respond to this email. If you are aware of

[spring] WG adoption call for draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths

Hi SPRING WG, Authors of draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths [1] have asked for WG adoption. Please indicate your support, comments, or objection, for adopting this draft as a working group item by August 20th 2020. (*) Could those who are willing to work on this document,

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

Hi SPRING WG, authors, Andrew We have good support to adopt this work. We have a new WG document. Authors, please republish the draft as draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment We run the adoption poll and the IPR on the -03 version. During the adoption call, a -04 version was published with

[spring] draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment-03

Hi, As an individual contributor, please find below some proposed comments. Thanks, Regards, Bruno --- "A SR Replication segment allows a packet to be replicated from a replication node to downstream nodes." May be adding "Each downstream node is reached by using a unicast segment or SR

Re: [spring] Understanding the replication draft

Hi Dhruv, > -Original Message- > From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody > Subject: Re: [spring] Understanding the replication draft > > Hi WG, > > Reading the I-D and based on the discussion on this thread I believe > more description is required. As Joel

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

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 adopting this draft as a working group item by July 6th 2020. Could those who are willing to work on this document, please notify the

Re: [spring] Leadership change

Thanks Rob. And welcome Jim, Joel. --Bruno -Original Message- From: Martin Vigoureux [mailto:martin.vigour...@nokia.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2020 10:25 PM To: spring@ietf.org Cc: 6...@ietf.org; int-...@ietf.org; ; James Guichard; Joel M. Halpern; DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN; Rob Shakir

Re: [spring] review of draft-tgraf-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-01

Hi Thomas, > From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > thomas.g...@swisscom.com > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 10:20 PM > > Hi Paul, > > Many thanks for the review and the feedback. Ack on all. I updated the draft > according to your and other input from the mailing

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

Rishabh, > From: Rishabh Parekh [mailto:risha...@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2020 6:59 PM > > Chairs, > IPR Poll finished about 3 months ago. When can we expect WG adoption > poll for this draft? Let's welcome the new chair first. We have been told this would happen soon.

[spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming - references

Hi Pablo, I have two comments regarding the References sections in the draft. 1) I think that below reference should be moved to the normative reference section [RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme, "IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437,

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

Andrew, > I just went and checked the spring WG site on trac.ietf.org. I found it > rather curious that there is not a *single* ticket on that site – nor is > there any closures listed on that site, despite all the work that has gone in. Some WGs use the ticket tracking system [1] , some

Re: [spring] Status of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming?

Fernando, > From: Fernando Gont [mailto:ferna...@gont.com.ar] > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 5:06 AM > > Folks, > > Ping? > > > On 6/3/20 06:25, Fernando Gont wrote: > > Marting & Bruno, > > > > May I ask what's the status of this I-D? - > > > > On one hand, both of you declared

[spring] Not meeting in Vancouver

Hi all, SPRING is not meeting in Vancouver. I personally can't go to Vancouver due to corporate travel restrictions. And there is no other co-chair. I'll cancel the slot request. --Bruno From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 5:32

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

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-programming > > Bruno's

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

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 -

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

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 -

Re: [spring] PSP and a logical application of RFC8200

Pablo, My reading is that Brian is asking for a clarification of the text, not a change in the behavior. In general, I think that clarification is good and that Brian's request is reasonable. Related to Brian's comment, but on top of them, I have further points on this section 4.16.1: 1) "

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

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

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

Dear S Moonesamy, > -Original Message- > From: S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+i...@elandsys.com] > Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 6:34 PM > To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN > Cc: Warren Kumari; Martin Vigoureux; Rob Shakir; spring@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [spring] Request to close the LC and move

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

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,

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

Dear S Moonesamy, > From: S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+i...@elandsys.com] > Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 5:34 PM > To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN > Cc: Warren Kumari; Martin Vigoureux; Rob Shakir; spring@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [spring] Request to close the LC and move forward//RE: WGLC - >

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

> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com] > > As far as I can tell, most of your email below is fair and well taken. > I appreciate your efforts Bruno. Thank you Joel. > However, I have to disagree with your description of what it takes to > decide to keep in or remove a

Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming (off-topic)

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

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

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-programming > > Dear Mr

Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming (off-topic)

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: [spring] WGLC -

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

> [under Suresh's control that I'm explicitly adding in copy] Sorry Suresh, I meant :s/that/who My primary excuse is that English is not my first language. Still, my mistake. --Bruno -Original Message- From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of

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

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-programming > > Dear

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

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-network-programming > > >

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

Fernando, > -Original Message- > From: Fernando Gont [mailto:ferna...@gont.com.ar] > 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 -

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

Dear S Moonesamy, Speaking as an individual contributor, please find below a few comments 1) The below email was a private email between a set of persons. Forwarding it, to a public list without permission is frown upon by the Netiquette (if not savoir-vivre, to begin with) "If the message was

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

Pablo, authors, WG, Section 4.16.1 [1] is the subject of multiple comments and clarification questions. Most notably some comments from Brian. Its current text is very focused on the technical specification. Technical specification is good and this is the primary objective to achieve

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

Hello SPRING WG, Please find below some status on the main points of this WG LC. === 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

Re: [spring] [Lsr] clarification of locator block and locator node in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming and draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions

Hi Ketan, Thanks fort the follow up. Clarification inline [Bruno] From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) [mailto:ket...@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 11:11 AM To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant); Chris Bowers Cc: l...@ietf.org; SPRING WG List;

Re: [spring] [Lsr] clarification of locator block and locator node in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming and draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions

Hi Ketan, From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 6:30 AM Hi Chris, I agree with Peter and I would suggest to drop LSR since this is not a protocol specific thing. I believe the text in

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

Fernando, > From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fg...@si6networks.com] > > Bruno, > > On 27/2/20 05:41, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > Fernando, > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fernando Gont > >> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020

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

Fernando, > -Original Message- > From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fernando Gont > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 12:45 AM > > Hello, Eric, > > On 26/2/20 20:18, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > > Writing this without any hat, > > > > Please note that on the

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

Fernando, > From: Fernando Gont [mailto:ferna...@gont.com.ar] > > On 26/2/20 11:37, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > Hi Robin, > > > > I think that this was expected that this specific LC would last for more > > than 2 weeks. > > > > Summarizing and closing it is on my to do list. (I

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

Hi Robin, I think that this was expected that this specific LC would last for more than 2 weeks. Summarizing and closing it is on my to do list. (I wish my to do list were smaller, or that I throw more $$ or contributors on action items. But wishing does not help much in my world.) That been

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

Hi all, authors, IANA has made the following early allocation in the Assigned Internet Protocol Numbers registry: 143 Ethernet Ethernet (TEMPORARY - registered 2020-01-31, expires 2021-01-31) [draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming] Please see

Re: [spring] Introduction of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming (was Re: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative advantages of SRv6)

Ron, From: Ron Bonica [mailto:rbon...@juniper.net] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 4:58 PM Bruno, Would you like Pablo and me to develop text offline and bring it back to the mailing list? Or would you prefer us to craft the text in a few emails on the mailing list? [Bruno] Any option

Re: [spring] Introduction of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming (was Re: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative advantages of SRv6)

Pablo, Thanks for the reply. I’m not seen explicitly what you are proposing to address Ron’s comment, regarding the clarification of this sentence in the draft. May I again suggest that both of you follow up to progress on a resolution to clarify the meaning of this sentence in the draft?

Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative advantages of SRv6

Hello Ron, Pablo, From: Ron Bonica [mailto:rbon...@juniper.net] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 9:38 PM To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN Cc: spring@ietf.org; Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative advantages of SRv6 Hello Bruno. According

Re: [spring] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8660 (5891)

Alice, To the best of my knowledge those two errata (5891 & 5890) are to be ignored. In particular because: - as of today in the errata system both errata refers to different RFCs and no errata refers to RFC 8660 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=5890

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

Martin, As per RFC 7120 early allocation process, we'd like to request AD approval for early allocation of an "Ethernet" value from the "Protocol Numbers" registry https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-07#section-9.1

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

Hi SPRING WG, We have large support for the early allocation and no objection. I'll forward the request to our AD. Thank you, --Bruno From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 5:54 PM To: SPRING WG Subject: [spring]

Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative advantages of SRv6

Ron, From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica Sent: Friday, January 10, 2020 8:14 PM To: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) Cc: spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative advantages of SRv6 Chairs, I believe that we have two

Re: [spring] draft-anand-spring-poi-sr

Madhukar, authors, Speaking as individual contributor, trying to help. Thanks for the updated draft, which has improved over time. The subject covers both optical and IP routing parts. Unfortunately, those subjects are typically covered in different WGs and by different people, so coming from

[spring] draft-anand-spring-poi-sr

[changing the thread subject from ‘Re: [spring] WG status - pending calls” to ‘draft-anand-spring-poi-sr’] Jeff, >From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura Ø Please also add draft-anand-spring-poi-sr-08. On that draft, I’ve spent quite some time with the

[spring] WG status - pending calls

Hi SPRING, A number of authors have asked for their document to be adopted or last called. Chairs have some backlog on this. The WG has also been pretty busy over the last 6 months with a set of subjects triggering many emails and this is not always the best time to ask for review of additional

  1   2   3   4   >