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

Hi Bruno I pinged Syed offline; correcting his email address. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of "bruno.decra...@orange.com" Date: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 11:12 AM To: "shas...@cisco.com" Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-spring-nsh...@ietf.org" , Andrew Alston Subjec

Re: [spring] [bess] FW: Call for publication of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18 - with multiple partial implementations (6/17 to 6/30)

Hi Sue and the WG I support publication of the draft (in its current form) I am aware of implementations of the draft Thanks Regards … Zafar From: BESS on behalf of Susan Hares Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 6:45 PM To: "spring@ietf.org" , "b...@ietf.org" , "i...@ietf.org" Subject: [bes

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

Dear chairs and the WG, I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR for this document. I have contributed and reviewed this draft and believe it to be ready for the publication. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of James Guichard Date: Monday, November 28, 2022 at 10:11 AM To: SPRING

Re: [spring] Issue 1 regarding draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression

Dear WG chairs and the WG, I agree that this resolves the issue 1; it is a single data plane solution compliant with the specifications in [RFC8402], [RFC8754] and [RFC8986], aka SRv6 data plane. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of Joel Halpern Date: Monday, July 31, 2023 at 5

Re: [spring] Issue 1 regarding draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression

clarifies your query. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Nick Hilliard Date: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 5:43 AM To: Zafar Ali (zali) Cc: Joel Halpern , SPRING WG List Subject: Re: [spring] Issue 1 regarding draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression Zafar, can you confirm that if Router A in one

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

Dear Chairs and the WG, 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). When SRv6 compression design team was formed, a design team mailer was created which was open to

Re: [spring] BFD in SPRING

Hi Greg Yes, this is consistent with my comment at the Mic: “ monitors a segment list ” (not a candidate path or SR policy) Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of Greg Mirsky Date: Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 7:21 AM To: spring Subject: [spring] BFD in SPRING Dear All, I wante

Re: [spring] wglc: draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy

Dear chairs and the WG, I have been part of an implementation of this draft. I have also reviewed the latest draft and consider it to be ready for publication. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of Michael McBride Date: Sunday, April 21, 2024 at 10:38 PM To: p...@ietf.org Cc: sp

[spring] Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking

Dear chairs and the WG, I am unaware of any undisclosed IPR related to this draft. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: bruno.decra...@orange.com Date: Thursday, July 11, 2024 at 9:25 AM To: draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interwork...@ietf.org Cc: SPRING WG Subject: [spring] IPR Disclosures for dr

[spring] Re: WG Adoption Call for draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking

Dear chairs and the WG, As a contributor, I support WG’s adoption of this draft. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: bruno.decra...@orange.com Date: Thursday, July 11, 2024 at 9:28 AM To: SPRING WG Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking Dear WG: This mes

[spring] Re: WG Adoption Call for draft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-security (ends Aug/19)

Hi Alvaro, Bruno, Joel, WG, and authors, I support the adoption call. However, I believe the document should be “informational.” I have a comment on the section 7.1.1: The Section is not specific to SRv6 compression (CSID draft). RFC 8754 and RFC 8986 define reduced SRH, i.e., SRH MAY be omitted

[spring] Re: WG Adoption Call for draft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-security (ends Aug/19)

Hi Alvaro, The current text is better aligned with the informational status. If needed, the status can be changed to Standards Track (or BCP) during the WG progression of the document. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Alvaro Retana Date: Monday, August 19, 2024 at 1:13 PM To: Zafar Ali (zali

Re: [spring] [mpls] working group adoption call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop

Support, Thanks Regards Š Zafar -Original Message- From: mpls on behalf of "John G.Scudder" Reply-To: "spring@ietf.org" Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 9:17 AM To: "spring@ietf.org" Cc: "m...@ietf.org" Subject: [mpls] working group adoption call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment

Re: [spring] IPR poll for draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

As contributor, I’m not aware of any undisclosed IPR related to this document. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of Date: Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 11:50 AM To: 'SPRING WG List' , draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Subject: [spring] IPR poll for draft-ietf-spring-srv

Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for

traceroute use-cases, respectively. Latest version is kept in the Github and also uploaded as https://www.ietf.org/staging/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-03.txt. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: "Joel M. Halpern" Date: Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 10:01 PM To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" ,

Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for

Hi Greg, Many thanks for your detailed comments. Much appreciated. Please see comments in-line and how the new version addresses your comments. I also look forward to our offline discussion on Friday. Please note we have been also maintaining the latest version of the draft in the 6man-Github.

Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for

Hi Zhenqiang, Many thanks for your comments. We have been maintaining the latest version of the draft in the Github to address all comments. However, we just posted revision 3. Add editorial comments has been fixed. For non-editorial comments, please see in-line. Thanks Regards … Zafar From:

[spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-03.txt

t-dra...@ietf.org" Date: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 6:50 PM To: Mach Chen , "Zafar Ali (zali)" , Daniel Voyer , Satoru Matsushima , "Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil)" Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-03.txt A new version of I-D, d

Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for - END.OTP

TP as END.OP would seem to be indistinguishable from proper operation in terms of behavior on the wire.) Yours, Joel On 12/18/2019 7:01 PM, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote: > Hi Joel, > > Thanks for your review. > > The processing details were embedded in the Section 4. > > We brought

Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for

Hi Ron, Thanks for your review. Unfortunately, you seem to have not get the latest version from the Github (which was later posted as v03). Good news is that your comments were addressed in the latest version. Please see specifics in-line. Happy Holidays! Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring

Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for - END.OTP

Hi Greg, Joel, We can add clarification text. Happy Holidays! Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Greg Mirsky Date: Thursday, December 19, 2019 at 12:44 PM To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" Cc: Robert Raszuk , SPRING WG , 6man WG Subject: Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for - END.OTP Hi Za

Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for

Hi Ron, Thanks for your detailed review. This is to acknowledge your email. Please expect delays in response due to the Christmas break. Happy Holidays, Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Ron Bonica Date: Monday, December 23, 2019 at 2:49 PM To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" , Ole Troan , 6man W

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

Dear WG and Chairs, I support this early allocation Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of "bruno.decra...@orange.com" Date: Thursday, December 19, 2019 at 11:55 AM To: SPRING WG Subject: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming - 2 week Early Allocation Call Hi SPRI

Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for

Hi Loa, Many thanks for your detailed review – greatly appreciated. I agree with Bob. I looked at the text file. The word document will make the comments, clearer. Please share. Looking forward to work with you to close on your comments. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of Bob

Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for

Hi Brian, Many thanks for your comments. Much appreciated. The working copy of the new version in the repository addresses your/ Loa’s comment highlighted in your email. https://github.com/ietf-6man/srv6-oam Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of Brian E Carpenter Organization: U

Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for

:49 PM To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" , Ole Troan , 6man WG , SPRING WG Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-cha...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for Hi Ali, I have review what I believe to be the latest version (in github) and have the following comments: Major ---

Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for

Hi Loa, Many thanks for your follow-up. Based on your feedback, we have updated the version in the GitHub. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Loa Andersson Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 9:59 PM To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" , Brian E Carpenter , Ole Troan , 6man WG , SPRING WG Cc: 6

Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for

Loa, Many thanks. The comments in your email has been addressed in latest version in the GitHub. We are working to address the rest of your comments. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Loa Andersson Date: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 5:03 AM To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" , Brian E Carpenter ,

Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for

Zafar Ali (zali)" Date: Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 6:46 PM To: Loa Andersson , Brian E Carpenter , Ole Troan , 6man WG , SPRING WG Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-cha...@ietf.org>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" Subject: Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for Loa, Many thanks. The comme

Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for

Regards … Zafar From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" Date: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 at 7:19 PM To: Greg Mirsky , Ole Troan Cc: SPRING WG , 6man WG , 6man Chairs <6man-cha...@ietf.org>, "Zafar Ali (zali)" Subject: Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for Hi Greg, Many thanks

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

+1, Just to add, in the spirit of IETF https://www.ietf.org/how/runningcode/ … implementation, commercial deployment and Inter-op status has been documented in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status/ Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of Li

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt

Hi Greg, Please see [ZA] in-line. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: ipv6 on behalf of Greg Mirsky Date: Friday, February 28, 2020 at 11:45 AM To: Robert Raszuk Cc: John Scudder , SPRING WG , 6man WG Subject: Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-10.txt Hi Robert

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

Hi Greg, O-bit is only used for telemetering a copy of sampled packets to a controller. This is an advance use-case for a controller based in-band OAM (OAM on data packets). Support for O-bit is optional. As per PSP use-cases discussions and agreement on the mailer, a node advertising PSP capab

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

Greg, Joel, All the existing IPv6 OAM tools (e.g., ICMP, traceroute, TWAMP, BFD, etc.) works “as-is” for the PSP SID. They shall exercise the FIB entry for the PSP SIDs, follow the same path as PSP SIDs, etc. We can add clarification in the OAM draft. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on b

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

IPv6 OAM tools has any dependency on the SRH presence. Like I mention, we can add clarification in the OAM draft. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: "Joel M. Halpern" Date: Sunday, March 1, 2020 at 9:09 AM To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" Cc: "6...@ietf.org" <6...@ietf.org>, s

Re: [spring] draft-ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting-04 reviewed

Hi Thomas Did you mean there is a need for IPFIX MPLS label type entry for Binding SID? Can you please elaborate? Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of "thomas.g...@swisscom.com" Date: Sunday, March 1, 2020 at 9:31 AM To: "draft-ali-spring-sr-traffic-account...@ietf.org" Cc: "sp

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

All, In addition, there is a misunderstanding here. The draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming LC is being handled by Martin Vigoureux, as stated by Martin in the following: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/w6VJzDYTVRFWOtvHuMso-kkiBXk/ Martin is neither a co-author nor a contrib

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-04.txt

Dear WG, As you know we are maintaining latest copy of draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam on 6man’s Github. https://github.com/ietf-6man/srv6-oam. We have prompted latest diffs from Github to https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-04. We will go over all changes made during L

[spring] Juniper show-cased PSP and SRH insertion at EANTC

Hi, We continue to see strong industry consensus on SRv6, Juniper show-cased SRv6 functionality at the latest EANTC report, especially: * SRH insertion * PSP support Reference: watch minute <9:43 (for PSP) and 15:56 (for SRH insertion)> of video

Re: [spring] Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH and RH0]

Hi John, You’ll recall what the 6man chairs said in Montreal and Singapore regarding CRH: During Spring session [1]:   “[Bob Hinden]  As 6man co-chair, would like to understand whether SPRING is interested in this work.” Bob reiterated the same message during Singapore IETF [https://mailarchiv

Re: [spring] Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH and RH0]

: "Zafar Ali (zali)" , John Scudder , "6man-cha...@ietf.org" <6man-cha...@ietf.org> Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , "6...@ietf.org" <6...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH and RH0] Zafar, Let me give another perspective o

Re: [spring] Adoption call criteria for CRH? [was: Re: CRH and RH0]

s191m61WdUOEzL4 Wim Henderickx https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/nX5-1rdXKOw6ks73VYfwvn7iaI8 Darren Dukes https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/v8UAgBGQ0yp0VBwGkZ3RwzH1MME Thanks Regards … Zafar From: John Scudder Date: Friday, May 15, 2020 at 2:56 PM To: "Zafar Ali (zali)&qu

[spring] CRH is back to the SPRING Use-Case - Re: Size of CR in CRH

Ron, I sensed that you will propose that … hence I already asked this question in my last email, Let me repeat. In rev 10 of the CRH document[1], the following SIDs with normative reference to SRm6 were defined but removed in Feb. 2020: "The following are valid segment types: o Adjacency.

[spring] CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

Hi, It appears that some may have misunderstood the SRv6 solution and invented CRH. It is good to clarify these points. SRv6 offers the possibility to combine underlay and overlay instructions in a single SRH. However, * This is entirely optional * If one would like to spread the source

[spring] Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

WH> My position remains that RFC8663 is a valid alternative and is available; I am against WG adoption of CRH. The industry widely supports RFC8663. Instead of denying the evidence, could the CRH authors and proponents finally understand that people are not opposed to new ideas? People ar

Re: [spring] Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

n (US), Fred L" Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 4:33 PM To: Andrew Alston , Ron Bonica , "Zafar Ali (zali)" , "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" , Sander Steffann Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: Long-standing practice of due-di

Re: [spring] Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

Hi Brian, As you said, >>I'd like hear from the Routing Area ADs. And you also mentioned the following in [1]: “progressing this draft without advice from the Routing Area that it is needed would be a bit foolish IMHO.” I agree with you. I also said in my email is that “could the CRH auth

Re: [spring] Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

Hi, The authors of CRH has already have multiple drafts and more CP/ DP changes will be required. E.g., it will require * ISIS changes (draft-bonica-lsr-crh-isis-extensions) * To carry VPN information (draft-bonica-6man-vpn-dest-opt) * For SFC (draft-bonica-6man-seg-end-opt) * BG

Re: [spring] Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

From: "Templin (US), Fred L" Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 5:53 PM To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" , Andrew Alston , Ron Bonica , "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" , Sander Steffann Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: Long-

Re: [spring] Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

?” [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/zRZJe68FZX3X0wla-muo3IkCJv8/ Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Andrew Alston Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 6:26 PM To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" , Brian E Carpenter , "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" , Sander Steffann Cc: &quo

Re: [spring] Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

together. [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/1wPX7xpvsgXlq1EMSs25MjwZNPA/ [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/IXlGxvjBBKvTMTA12UaX8jHqQNw/ Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Andrew Alston Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 4:19 PM To: Ron Bonica , "Zafar Ali (zali)"

Re: [spring] Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

PM To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" Cc: "Templin (US), Fred L" , Andrew Alston , Ron Bonica , "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" , Sander Steffann , "spring@ietf.org" , 6man <6...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected -

[spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-05.txt

.org" Date: Friday, June 12, 2020 at 12:27 PM To: Daniel Voyer , Mach Chen , "Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil)" , Satoru Matsushima , "Zafar Ali (zali)" Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-05.txt A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-6man-spring-s

Re: [spring] Leadership change

Hi, Many Thanks Rob for your help and the services. Many Thanks Bruno for the continued support and help to the WG. Welcome Joel and Jim as co-chairs of Spring! Thanks Regards … Zafar From: ipv6 on behalf of Martin Vigoureux Date: Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 4:26 PM To: "spring@ietf.org" Cc: "

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

Dear Chairs and the WG, I support adoption of this draft. I am one of the contributors and am committed to working with the WG to complete the work. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of "bruno.decra...@orange.com" Date: Monday, June 22, 2020 at 10:48 AM To: "spring@ietf.org" Su

Re: [spring] WG LC https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang/

Dear chairs and the WG, The document is in a mature state; I support the WG LC. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of James Guichard Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 at 2:01 PM To: "spring@ietf.org" Cc: "spring-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: [spring] WG LC https://datatracker.ietf.org/d

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-raza-spring-sr-policy-yang

Dear chairs and the WG, I read the document; it provides a very good base for the WG to work on and finish one of its milestones. I support the adoption of this draft. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of James Guichard Date: Monday, July 13, 2020 at 11:39 AM To: "spring@ietf.or

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-raza-spring-srv6-yang

Dear chairs and the WG, I read the document. The document provides a very good base for the WG to work on and finish one of its milestones. I support the adoption of this draft. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of James Guichard Date: Monday, July 13, 2020 at 5:52 PM To: "sprin

[spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-07.txt

Mach Chen , Satoru Matsushima , "Zafar Ali (zali)" , Daniel Voyer Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-07.txt A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-07.txt has been successfully submitted by Zafar Ali and posted to the IETF repository. Name:

Re: [spring] SRV6 OAM (USP SID)

. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Rajesh M Date: Monday, September 14, 2020 at 5:36 AM To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" , "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" , "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" Cc: "G. Sri Karthik Goud" , Deepti Rathi , SPRING WG Subject: SRV6 OAM (USP SID) When ingr

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11

Support! Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of James Guichard Date: Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 8:52 AM To: "spring@ietf.org" Cc: "ippm-cha...@ietf.org" , "spring-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srp

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-03

Support! Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of James Guichard Date: Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 8:52 AM To: "spring@ietf.org" Cc: "ippm-cha...@ietf.org" , "spring-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srp

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-08.txt

Dear WG, We have posted the new revision of the draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam draft. The changes were requested by the chairs to address the following: 1. The abstract was not descriptive enough for publication. Enhanced the abstract and introduction. 2. Updated the IANA Considerations

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-li-spring-srv6-path-segment

Support! Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of James Guichard Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 at 12:41 PM To: "spring@ietf.org" Cc: "spring-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-li-spring-srv6-path-segment Dear WG: This message starts a 3 week WG adoptio

Re: [spring] Last-call comments on OAM in SRv6 draft

Hi Greg, Many thanks for your comments and offline discussion to help close them; much appreciated. We have uploaded rev 10 to address your comments. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-spring-srv6-oam-10 The comments are addressed as in-lined with [ZA] in the following. Than

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

Dear chairs and the WG, I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR related to this document. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of James Guichard Date: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 6:34 AM To: SPRING WG Cc: "spring-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: [spring] IPR Call for draft-ietf-spring-segmen

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

Dear chairs and the WG, I have re-read the latest version of the draft carefully and I support the WGLC. I find it quite well written and ready for the publication. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of James Guichard Date: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 2:57 PM To: "spring@ietf.org"

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-06.txt

Dear chairs and the WG, I have reviewed the draft and find it a needed companion of the work adopted by the IPPM WG I support the adoption Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of James Guichard Date: Monday, June 7, 2021 at 8:34 AM To: "spring@ietf.org" Cc: "spring-cha...@ietf.or

Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6

Hi, I agree with the chairs that there is (quite clear) consensus for standardizing one dataplane solution, and that there is significant interest in using the framework in the CSID draft for addressing the compression requirements. My view is that we move towards WG adoption of the document,

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

Dear WG and the chairs, I strongly support the adoption call About the matter in the email, the WG has defined a single data plane solution, i.e., SRv6 (RFC8402, RFC8754, and RFC8986). SRv6 as per the inherent nature of the network programming model (RFC8996) already defines multiple standardiz

Re: [spring] [Idr] IDR WG 2 week WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe - (2/15/2017 to 3/1/2017)

Hi: I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Idr on behalf of Susan Hares Date: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 6:34 PM To: "i...@ietf.org" Cc: "spring@ietf.org" Subject: [Idr] IDR WG 2 week WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-rout

Re: [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Hi, This draft breaks the SR architecture. I am quoting a snippet from abstract of SR Architecture document https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-13, which states: “SR allows to enforce a flow through any topological path while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingr

Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

write a draft before the next IETF. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Xuxiaohu Date: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 9:54 PM To: Greg Mirsky Cc: "Zafar Ali (zali)" , draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths , "m...@ietf.org" , spring Subject: RE: [mpls] [spring] Sp

Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Hi John, Sorry for delay in the response; I was away from the emails. Please see in-line. Thanks Regards … Zafar procedure (in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths) that breaks SR Architecture, highly unscalable and complicated to implement. [JD] Do you have any evidence to

Re: [spring] measurement requirements (was Re: [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths)

16, 2017 16:23 > *To:* Alexander Vainshtein > *Cc:* spring; Clarence Filsfils; mpls; Michael Gorokhovsky; > draft-ietf-spring-oam-usec...@ietf.org; > draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths; Zafar Ali (zali) > *Subject:* Re: [mpls] [spring] Specia

Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Hi Adrian, Some comments are provided in-line. Please note that, we all want to let this lingering tread die and follow-up on the next steps noted during this email exchange. I will be happy to have a webEx call and discuss it further, offline. Thanks Regards … Zafar On 11/18/17, 9:08 AM

Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

, offline. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: "jdr...@juniper.net" Date: Sunday, November 19, 2017 at 12:59 PM To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" Cc: draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths , spring , "m...@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels

Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

From: Greg Mirsky Date: Monday, November 20, 2017 at 7:03 PM To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" Cc: "adr...@olddog.co.uk" , "m...@ietf.org" , spring Subject: Re: [mpls] [spring] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths Hi Zafar, I don

Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

Greg, Looking forward to the modified proposal. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Greg Mirsky Date: Monday, November 20, 2017 at 10:53 PM To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" Cc: "adr...@olddog.co.uk" , "m...@ietf.org" , spring Subject: Re: [mpls] [spring] Special purpose

Re: [spring] [mpls] Special purpose labels in draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths

document what can be achieved using the existing tools and counters, and use it to perform gap analysis (please stay tuned on it). Thanks Regards … Zafar From: on behalf of Robert Raszuk Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 1:34 PM To: "adr...@olddog.co.uk" Cc: "Zafar Ali (zali)&qu

Re: [spring] SPRING WG

Hi, Thanks Martin for your services to the Spring WG; much appreciated. I wish you best of luck in your new (AD) role. It’s great that IETF community will continue to benefit even more from your expertise. Thanks Gaurav for the initiative. For what it worth, I fully support your proposal. Tha

Re: [spring] New spring WG Co-Chair

Hi Rob, Martin, Welcome aboard, Rob. We look forward to work with you in your new role. Thanks Martin again for your services; we look forward to work with you in your new role. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of Alvaro Retana Date: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 7:41 AM To:

Re: [spring] [mpls] The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Dear MPLS WG Chairs and the authors of draft-farrel-mpls-sfc, I would like to draw your attention to the serious issue raised by Xiaohu and Francois. Summary: Please note that this working group adaption against the IETF process and its spirit. Please recall the adaption call. Details: Just

Re: [spring] What's the consensus among co-chairs and ADs regarding the better place for the SR-MPLS-over-IP work?

Hi Xiaohu, Chairs and the ADs, As this draft does NOT make any changes to the MPLS data plane and is related to the source routing, IMO, SPRING is the right home for the draft. If you look at meeting minutes of Spring WG at last IETF (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/minutes-1

Re: [spring] [mpls] Progress with draft-farrel-mpls-sfc

Hi Adrian, et al, Thanks for addressing the concerns and responding to the objections to the draft. Given the amount and nature of the expected changes and lack of support, I would assume authors will resubmit and ask for WG adaptation on a revised revision. Thanks Regards … Zafar On

Re: [spring] SPRING - rechartering discussion

Dear WG Chairs, I fully agree with Paul. Indeed, SRTE is one of the most basic but important use-cases of SR. As a matter of fact, SRTE is integral pieces of the SR Architecture. It should be considered as part of the core SR Architecture definition. Given this, I am not surprised that curre

Re: [spring] [sfc] [mpls] Progress with draft-farrel-mpls-sfc

n.co.uk/Tales-Wood-Adrian-Farrel/dp/1786100924 Or buy from me direct at IETF-101 > -Original Message- > From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:z...@cisco.com] > Sent: 17 March 2018 07:09 > To: adr...@olddog.co.uk; m...@ietf.org; s...@ietf.org; 'SPRING WG List'

Re: [spring] SPRING - rechartering discussion

Dear WG Chairs, I completely agree with Martin. To add, the task for "New OAM techniques" is not only explicitly mentioned in the existing charter (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-spring/) but there is a current milestone associated with it, "Specify the OAM mechanisms needed to

Re: [spring] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: SPRING - rechartering discussion

Hi All, I could not agree more with Dan. As indicated by the text quoted by Dan from the Spring charter [https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/spring/about/], SR Policy specification is not only part of the current Spring Charter; it is the basis of "source routing" and is the heart of the Spring WG

Re: [spring] Please count the SRv6 for Mobile work [was Re: SPRING - rechartering discussion]

All, I agree with Satoru. The Spring WG should be a central place to review the SR related work at DMM and the other WGs. Thanks Regards … Zafar On 3/23/18, 6:01 AM, "spring on behalf of Satoru Matsushima" wrote: Hello SPRING folks, Let me share an ongoing work in DMM WG

Re: [spring] [mpls] For the fairness and justice of the IETF culture//Re: What to do with draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-00.txt

Hi Brian, I agree with what you mentioned, and particularities of this case are similar. In this particular case, the problem can easily be solved by removing section 6 (which is covered by draft-xu-mpls-service-chaining). This issue was raised during the WG adoption of the document. In the ema

Re: [spring] [mpls] [sfc] Working Group adoption of draft-farrel-mpls-sfc

Dear Stewart, WG Chairs and the WG, I do not agree with Stewart’s points and will response in a separate email. But all that is just noise and that cannot resolve the issue at hand. A countless time, Xiaohu has raised the issue that the intellectual property for the contents in section 6 of dra

Re: [spring] WG adoption of draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy?

Hi Rob, The authors of the draft are coordinating to address your comments and will update the chairs and the WG, accordingly. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of Rob Shakir Date: Monday, May 7, 2018 at 3:06 PM To: Paul Mattes Cc: "bruno.decra...@orange.com" , "spring@ietf.org

[spring] Your comment on draft-ali-spring-srv6-oam

Hi Sam, This is a follow-up on your comments at the WG at the last IETF. Unfortunately, the time was quite restrictive and we were not able to go over it in detail. According to the minutes, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-101-spring/ your comment was: “Can you do MTU? Is there a case

Re: [spring] About draft-ali-spring-srv6-oam-00

; it will be soon. Should the WG has any other question, we will be glad to address them in v01. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Huzhibo Date: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 12:56 AM To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" , "draft-ali-spring-srv6-...@ietf.org" , "spring@ietf.org" Cc

Re: [spring] IPR Poll for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy

Dear Chairs and the WG, Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft. Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy). Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf o

Re: [spring] Working Group Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy

Dear WG and chairs, Support (as a co-author). Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of Rob Shakir Date: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 11:21 AM To: SPRING WG List Subject: [spring] Working Group Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy Hi SPRING WG, This email i

Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-13

Dear Martin, Chairs and the WG, I have read the document and believe it is ready for the publication. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of "bruno.decra...@orange.com" Date: Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 1:18 PM To: SPRING WG List Cc: "draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-m...@ietf.org"

Re: [spring] About draft-ali-spring-srv6-oam-00

w label in the outer IPv6 header to compute the hash. RFC6437 describes the use of flow labels to compute a hash for IPv6 packets. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Loa Andersson Date: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 9:48 AM To: Huzhibo , "Zafar Ali (zali)" , "draft-ali-spring-srv6-...

Re: [spring] About draft-ali-spring-srv6-oam-00

+1 on what Robert mentioned; thanks Robert. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of Robert Raszuk Date: Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 5:20 AM To: Loa Andersson Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , "Zafar Ali (zali)" , "draft-ali-spring-srv6-...@ietf.org" Subject

  1   2   >