Fully agree! Regards, Jeff
> On May 21, 2014, at 9:05 PM, "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > These documents have been going through multiple reviews and are ready to > ask for WG adoption afais. > >> On 20/05/14 11:00, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Dear WG members and co-chairs, >> >> after the adoption of draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement I'd like to >> submit >> to your consideration the following documents that has been presented >> already >> at multiple occasions (IETF87, IETF88 and IETF89): >> >> 1. >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases >> -00 >> The WG already expressed consensus and support to the document during >> IETF88 but >> its adoption to WG item has been deferred due to the work on the problem >> statement draft. >> >> 2. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-01 >> This document is the base description of the SR technology and >> terminology. It >> has updated to the latest state of the agreement on SR from all the >> co-authors >> (vendors and operators). The draft has been simplified and focuses on the >> SR terminology and applicability to existing dataplanes. It clearly >> describes >> how SR fits within the MPLS architecture and IPv6 architecture. >> >> 3. >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls-01 >> The document describes the instantiation of SR on the MPLS dataplane. The >> draft has been updated with some illustration examples so to show how SR >> operates on top of MPLS and how MPLS dataplane is used "as is", i.e., >> without >> any modification. >> >> 4. >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-inter >> op-01 >> This document describes the interoperability between SR and LDP in order >> to >> ease gradual deployments and co-existence between SR and legacy LDP >> control >> plane. >> >> 5. >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-francois-spring-segment-routing-ti-lfa-00 >> This document outlines the SR solution for a Topology Independent LFA >> strategy. >> It addresses the use case and requirement described in >> draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-00 >> >> As a reminder, Segment Routing protocol extensions are described in: >> . http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-00 >> WG Item in ISIS working group >> . >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-04 >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-ospfv3-extens >> ion-01 >> in OSPF working group >> . http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sivabalan-pce-segment-routing-02 >> in PCE working group >> >> The scope of this email is to bring these documents to your attention in >> order >> to validate the consensus and support the authors require prior to >> request >> their adoption as WG items to the WG-chairs. >> >> >> Thanks. >> s. >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> spring mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
