Re: [spring] IPR for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing prior to (additional) WGLC

Authors and Contributors, it seems that we are missing answers to the IPR question from a good number of people: Authors: Clarence and Stéphane Contributors: Ahmed, Martin, Edward, Igor, and Saku Please do respond. We need this to move forward. Thanks -m Le 24/07/2016 14:49, John G.Scudder

Re: [spring] IPR for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe prior to WGLC

Authors it seems that we are missing answers to the IPR question from Clarence, Dimitry, and Daniel. Please do respond. We need this to move forward. Thanks -m Le 24/07/2016 14:50, John G.Scudder a écrit : Dear Authors: As we discussed at the SPRING meeting, working group last call has be

Re: [spring] IPR for draft‐ietf-spring-segment‐routing-mpls prior to WGLC

Authors and Contributors, it seems that we are missing answers to the IPR question from a good number of people: Authors: Clarence, Ahmed, Martin, and Edward Contributors: Igor and Saku Please do respond. We need this to move forward. Thanks -m Le 08/08/2016 13:10, stephane.litkow...@orange

Re: [spring] [mpls] WG adoption requested for draft-psarkar-spring-mpls-anycast-segments

Hannes, Clarence, Martin, we still need your answers to the IPR question. WG, we'd welcome that more opinions -in support or not- be expressed on the list. -m Le 24/07/2016 14:39, John G. Scudder a écrit : Dear WG (and cc MPLS, please include SPRING in replies), As we discussed at our meeti

Re: [spring] WG adoption requested for draft‐filsfils‐spring‐large-scale-interconnect

Clarence, Dave, Francis, Tim, Steven, and Luay, we still need your answers to the IPR question. WG, we'd welcome that more opinions -in support or not- be expressed on the list. Thanks -m Le 24/07/2016 14:55, John G. Scudder a écrit : Dear WG, As we discussed at our meeting, working group

Re: [spring] [mpls] WG adoption requested for draft-psarkar-spring-mpls-anycast-segments

WG, this document is now adopted. Authors, please republish as draft-ietf-spring-mpls-anycast-segments-00 thanks -m Le 24/07/2016 14:39, John G. Scudder a écrit : Dear WG (and cc MPLS, please include SPRING in replies), As we discussed at our meeting, working group adoption has been requested

[spring] Slots requests for SPRING WG session - IETF 97 - Seoul

All, it is time we start building the SPRING WG agenda for Seoul. The IETF agenda is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/97/agenda.html Please note that it is still a preliminary agenda. The SPRING WG session (1.5h) is currently scheduled on Thursday, 17th of November, Morning ses

[spring] WG LC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing

Hello WG, this e-mail initiates a two-week WG LC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing [1]. All authors have already replied to the IPR poll. There is known IPR [2] on this document. Please read the latest version of the document and state whether or not you support the submission of this do

[spring] SPRING status

WG, Bruno has been managing SPRING alone since after IETF 106, because Rob has been unable to act as chair. I have made several attempts to find a solution and I now have serious hopes for the situation to return back to normal soon. Bruno being involved in the draft currently in WG LC, I wi

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

" but I am sure this is what Bruno meant. Best regards, Martin Vigoureux Le 2020-02-28 à 23:02, S Moonesamy a écrit : Dear Mr Vigoureux, I am contacting you as you are listed as the Responsible Area Director for the SPRING Working Group [1].  I would like to thank the Working Grou

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

WG, as I had indicated in a previous message I am the one evaluating consensus for this WG LC. I have carefully read the discussions on the list. I acknowledge that disagreements were expressed regarding what a particular piece of text of RFC 8200 says, and on which this document builds to p

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

rtain aspects go beyond SPRING and would benefit from being discussed with a wider community. I'd like to remind that this was a WG Chair level decision. Indeed, Bruno still needs to produce the shepherd write-up and submit the document for publication. Martin Le 2020-03-02 à 19:

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

ion. I think we can now move forward. I very much understand that dissatisfaction persists in relation to the "8200 discussion". This will be reflected in the shepherd report, such that, ultimately, the IESG is made aware. Bruno is the shepherd. -m Le 2020-03-04 à 22:02, Martin Vi

[spring] Leadership change

WG, Rob had decided to step down as chair some time ago. There hasn't been any formal communication on that so I'd like, first, to thank Rob for his work and dedication to the group. Thank you very much Rob. Since that time, I have been actively looking for one (or two) person(s) to replace

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

Hello Pablo, thank you. In relation to item 5, here is a suggestion discussed by the IESG during the Telechat: "In the context of this specification, the End, End.X and End.T behaviors with PSP do not contravene Section 4 of [RFC8200] because the destination address of the incoming packet is

[spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-06

Hello Working Group, This email starts a 2-week Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-06 [1]. ¤ Please read the document if you haven't read the most recent version yet, and send your comments to the list, no later than the *12th of February*. Note that this is *not

[spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-05

Hello Working Group, This email starts a 2-week Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-05 [1]. ¤ Please read the document if you haven't read the most recent version yet, and send your comments to the list, no later than the *19th of February*. Note that this

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-07.txt

Reviewers, Authors, thank you. We will now proceed towards requesting publication to IESG. -m Le 07/02/2017 à 14:52, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) a écrit : this is the updated version after all received comments. Thanks. s. On Feb 7, 2017, at 2:50 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: A New

[spring] Next steps for SPRING?

WG, in the session we have opened the discussion on the future of the WG, putting all options on the table (recharter/close/sleep). As a foreword, we still have few WG Documents that we need to -and will- push towards IESG (and a greater number that need to reach RFC status), but with those we

Re: [spring] Requirements towards OAM in Segment Routing network

Speaking as co-chair. I also believe that the WG should focus on producing meaningful material we can submit to IESG with confidence. In fact we have discussed with the authors of draft-ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement and out of the replies I have received, consensus was not to push this docu

[spring] No session in Prague

WG, Bruno and I have discussed. Considering that the bulk of the WG documents had been sent to IESG in March and that the current items under focus can progress via exchanges on the list we have decided not to request a slot in Prague. As such there won't be a SPRING meeting in Prague. marti

[spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution

Hello Working Group, This email starts a Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution-04 [1] which is considered mature and ready for a final working group review. ¤ Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent version yet, and send your comments to the li

Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution

WG, We are half-way through the WG Last Call and I am very surprised to only see a single answer to it. I am not sure I'll move this forward with only silence as support. -m Le 29/06/2017 à 15:28, Martin Vigoureux a écrit : Hello Working Group, This email starts a Working Group Last

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

Alvaro, 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. Document was already trimmed as part of the shepherd review. If Section 2 was to be moved out of the document then yes, I think it co

[spring] Slots requests for SPRING WG session - IETF 100 - Singapore

All, it is time we start building the SPRING WG agenda for Singapore. The IETF agenda (still preliminary) is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/agenda.html The SPRING WG session (1h30) is scheduled on Wednesday, November 15th, 2017 / Afternoon session II / 15:20-16:50 (local

[spring] please reduce TO: and CC: lists to strict minimum

messages are bouncing. thanks -m ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Re: [spring] May I ask about the status of the new SPRING charter?

Hello, the chairs have recently shared with me some text which I'm look at right now. So this is progressing. -m Le 2018-05-07 à 9:12, Chengli (IP Technology Research) a écrit : Hi all, After reading some threads that talk about the new charter, I would like to know the status of recharter

Re: [spring] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on charter-ietf-spring-01-02: (with COMMENT)

Hello Mirja, yes, but since it is true there is no harm in keeping it either. -m Le 2018-09-24 à 15:47, Mirja Kühlewind a écrit : Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-spring-01-02: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and rep

Re: [spring] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ietf-spring-01-02: (with COMMENT)

Hello Alissa, If the WG identifies security aspects arising from certain deployment scenarios, yes it shall formulate requirements for addressing these. SPRING is upstream to the protocol WGs so its documents should not depend on the protocol extensions, and, in my view, are thus likely to pro

Re: [spring] Thoughts and concerns

[simply replying to the latest e-mail of the thread] Hello I believe that discussing the content of such type of materials on SPRING’s mailing list is not the most productive thing to do, primarily because I can’t see how having such a discussion could serve the objectives of the WG. I have r

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

Hi, I support this document moving forward. As part of the WG LC I'd like to suggest a minor clarification. Document explains the conditions the SID structure shall satisfy for compression to be feasible, which, in my view should not be confused with Segment List Validation (as per rfc9256).

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

Hi, I support this document moving forward. As part of the WG LC I'd like to suggest a minor clarification. Document explains the conditions the SID structure shall satisfy for compression to be feasible, which, in my view should not be confused with Segment List Validation (as per rfc9256).

Re: [spring] [IPv6] Requiring Tunneling - subject change

Hi Joel, Le 2024-03-28 à 16:46, Joel Halpern a écrit : CAUTION:This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Robert, as far as I can tell, you are asking for a different change than

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

Joel, do you mean specifying the sid *list* as the DA? -m Le 2024-04-04 à 19:26, jmh.direct a écrit : CAUTION:This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. So you can't ping a uSID l

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

Hi, in my view, this draft doesn't *change* the text of 8200. It provides information on how to determine the DA when C-SIDs are used. -m Le 2024-04-03 à 23:28, Joel Halpern a écrit : CAUTION:This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments

Re: [spring] [IPv6] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SIDs (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)

Le 2024-04-05 à 16:30, Tom Herbert a écrit : CAUTION:This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. On Fri, Apr 5, 2024, 8:53 AM Antoine FRESSANCOURT