[spring] IETF 90 Agenda Items (spring)

Hi! We have a 2-hour slot in Toronto on Wednesday afternoon: WEDNESDAY, July 23, 2014 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I CanadianRTG spring Source Packet Routing in Networking WG Send any requests for time to John and I. We will prioritize the items already listed in the charter

Re: [spring] Re.: SPRING OpenFlow interworking discussion

On 7/1/14 10:59 AM, "b.khasnab...@ieee.org" mailto:vum...@gmail.com>> wrote: Bhumip: Hi! How are you? Would there be any opportunity to discuss SPRING OpenFlow interworking during the Toronto (IETF-90) mtg.? If you're asking about time in the meeting..then then a

[spring] spring Minutes IETF 90

Hi! I just posted notes from the WG meeting in Toronto. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/minutes/minutes-90-spring Thanks to Jon Mitchell for stepping up and taking great notes. Alvaro. ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/ma

[spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement

Hi! As agreed at the last in person meeting, this message starts the Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement. This call will close by EOD (pick your favorite time zone) on October 8, 2014. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement Please provide sp

[spring] IPR Claims related to draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement

Hi! In parallel to the WGLC for this draft, I want to formally ask the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version of the draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. So far there are no related disclosures. The

[spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing

Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on October 8, 2014. Some additional background: This draft presents the 'Segment Routing Architecture'; it focuses on the

[spring] IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing

Hi! In parallel to the WG Adoption Call for this draft, I want to formally ask the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version of the draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR beyond what has been already disclo

[spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls

Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on October 8, 2014. Some additional background: This draft describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS

[spring] IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls

Hi! In parallel to the WG Adoption Call for this draft, I want to formally ask the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version of the draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. So far there are no related discl

Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement

On 9/24/14 5:00 AM, "Roberta Maglione (robmgl)" mailto:rob...@cisco.com>> wrote: Roberta: Hi! 10. Manageability Considerations I would point to spring architecture document for manageability considerations, or remove this section. Given that this is the problem statement, we shouldn't be poin

Re: [spring] Request WG adoption polling//FW: The rationale of draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip

On 9/17/14 3:26 AM, "Xuxiaohu" wrote: Xiaohu: Hi! Sorry for the delay.. >The rationale of this draft is simple and clear: for a given label >binding of FEC X learnt though IGPs, if the IGP next-hop for FEC X is a >non-SPRING node (i.e., just a normal IGP router which supports IP >forwarding),

Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement

On 9/23/14 2:28 PM, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" mailto:aret...@cisco.com>> wrote: [WG Chair Hat Off] Hi! As agreed at the last in person meeting, this message starts the Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement. This call will close by EOD (pick your fa

[spring] IETF 91 Agenda Items (spring)

Hi! The preliminary agenda for Honolulu was posted yesterday (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/91/agenda.txt), and spring is scheduled to meet as follows: THURSDAY, November 13, 2014 0900-1130 Morning Session I Coral 3 RTG spring Source Packet Routing in Netw

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing

, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" mailto:aret...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on October 8, 2014. Some additional backgro

Re: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing

On 10/7/14, 11:26 AM, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" wrote: >IPR is in the process of being disclosed. The IPR was filed on Oct/7, but it was done against draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing, which is the precursor of this draft. The filing is ok, it just took me a while to find it. For the WG

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing

Reference: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2457/ On 10/17/14, 4:17 PM, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" mailto:aret...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi! So far we haven’t received any objection to the adoption of this document. Given that the authors have a recent IPR disclosure, we’re goi

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls

! Alvaro. On 9/24/14, 9:07 AM, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" mailto:aret...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on Octobe

Re: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls

On 10/7/14, 11:26 AM, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" wrote: >IPR is in the process of being disclosed. The IPR was filed on Oct/7. For the WG reference: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2454/ Authors: We still haven¹t received an explicit answer from Clarence, Ahmed, Bruno, Stephane, Igor, Saku

[spring] IETF 91 Draft Agenda (spring)

HI! I just published the draft agenda: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/agenda/agenda-91-spring As it stands, the agenda is pretty light. I’m hoping everyone is holding their requests for last.. Note that the final agenda has to be in on Nov/3. Let me know if I missed any request. Thanks

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing

Hi! We have reached consensus on adopting this draft, and received IPR statements from all the authors. Authors: Please republish this draft as draft-ietf-spring-architecture Thanks! Alvaro. On 10/17/14, 4:30 PM, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" mailto:aret...@cisco.com>> w

Re: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls

. On 10/17/14, 4:41 PM, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" wrote: >On 10/7/14, 11:26 AM, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" >wrote: > >>IPR is in the process of being disclosed. > >The IPR was filed on Oct/7. > >For the WG reference: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls

Hi! We finally received all the IPR statements for this draft..there is consensus to adopt. Authors: Please repost as draft-ietf-spring-architecture-mpls Thanks! Alvaro. On 9/24/14, 9:07 AM, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" mailto:aret...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi! This message o

[spring] IETF 91 Minutes

Just posted: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-spring Thanks to Jon Mitchell for being our scribe. Alvaro. ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

[spring] New spring WG Co-Chair

Dear spring WG: Due to the demands of his job John has decided to step down as spring Co-Chair, a position he has held since the formation of the WG almost 3 years ago. John has been instrumental in driving the collaboration with other groups working on spring-related extensions. Thank you!!

Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-10

On 5/2/17, 12:57 PM, "Stewart Bryant" wrote: Stewart: Hi! How are you? Thanks for the detailed review! > A significant part of the justification seems to evolve around the > inability of MPLS to function in an IPv6 only network. It seems to me that this statement summarizes many of the conce

[spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-06

Dear authors: Hi! How are you? I just finished reading this document. Thank you for using a more descriptive name for this document. I have some comments (please see below) that I would like to see addressed before putting this document up for review by the IESG. I am however starting the

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-06

Hi! I looked -08 and almost everything looks good to me. The only exception is the result from the comment below: 1. All the new references should be Informative as they seem to just be examples: “Packets from a variety of protocols can be used to check continuity. These include…”. 2.

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

Dear authors: I just finished reviewing this document – sorry for the delay in processing. Thanks for all the work you’ve but into this document! I have some significant concerns (see below for details). In general, the document presents an incomplete view of the architecture: details about

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

Dear authors: I just finished reading this document. Please take a look at my comments below. 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 Standards Track? From the Introdu

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&Q2: 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? It is probably too late to

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 document is useful and

[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 inform

[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 draft-ietf-spring-segment-rou

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

Robert: I understand. My main point is that the spring architecture document should clearly make that clear. Right now, it is really easy to interpret the SR domain ending at the routing edge (not the hosts). Also, the architecture is the right place to have this discussion. Thanks! Alvaro