[Changed the subject and the author’s alias.]
Rakesh: I’ll add this document to the queue. There was some engagement in June (around the time you first asked for the split). I’m assuming that any common definitions or procedures are included in this draft, right? If there are any pieces of the common definitions, or the SRv6 part specifically, where you may want the WG to weigh in, now would be a good time to ask. I took a very quick look and the reference to I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment should be Normative because the PSID is part of the specified procedures (from §4.3.1): "The Path Segment Identifier (PSID) [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment] of the SRv6 Policy (for the Segment List or for the Candidate-Path) is added to the Segment List of the STAMP test packets when the egress node supports PSID processing.” I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment is also on the WGLC queue, so we’ll process this one after that. Thanks! Alvaro. On October 3, 2025 at 8:56:31 AM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) ([email protected]) wrote: Thanks Alvaro and WG. FYI: We have published following split drafts: 1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-srv6/ 2. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-mpls/ We also like to request WGLC for the first draft (SRv6 PM). Thanks, Rakesh P.S. Good opportunity for WGLC for 00 version draft😊 *From: *Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> *Date: *Tuesday, September 30, 2025 at 1:08 PM *To: *[email protected] < [email protected]> *Cc: *spring Chairs <[email protected]>, [email protected] < [email protected]> *Subject: *Re: Splitting the SR STAMP document (draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm) Dear authors: We received no objections to your request. Please submit two drafts: draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-srv6 and draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-mpls Thanks! Alvaro. On September 18, 2025 at 1:38:59 PM, Alvaro Retana ([email protected]) wrote: Dear spring WG: During the recent meeting in Madrid, the authors of draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm (Performance Measurement Using STAMP for Segment Routing Networks) requested opinions on splitting the document into two to separate the procedures that apply to SRv6 and MPLS. For more background, please see the slides from IETF 123: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/123/materials/slides-123-spring-performance-measurement-using-stamp-for-segment-routing-networks-00 During the discussion, the use of MNA was questioned, and we agreed to consult with the mpls WG. We will postpone that consultation until the WG decides whether splitting the document is ok. If anyone objects, please reply to this message by EOD on September 26, 2025. Thanks! Alvaro.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
