Dear SPRING WG Chairs, This draft was presented in the SPRING WG session in IETF-123 (Madrid). The SPRING session meeting minutes are available at:
- https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/123/materials/minutes-123-spring-202507241500-00 In that meeting, there was following comment related to the MNA used in this draft: *"We should consult with MPLS WG on whether we should use MNA or not. The SPRING WG should not choose."* FYI: Following email was sent on the MPLS WG list to solicit feedback to close this item on April 20th but no comments were received. - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/N1nxQiIUIMW1xVDjSUbCHLQOWZQ/ This draft has been presented in the MPLS WG session in IETF-121 (Dublin): - https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/121/materials/slides-121-mpls-performance-measurement-using-stamp-for-segment-routing-networks-draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-16-01 *We would like to request WGLC for this draft.* Thanks, Rakesh (for authors) Note that this draft is a normative reference for the following draft already sent to IESG: - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy/
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
