Dear Authors, et al,
I read the draft and have several questions:
- It seems like the main motivation for this document is enabling the
Alternate Marking method of collecting the operational state information,
and on-path performance measurements in an SRv6 domain exclusively at SR
seg
Hi All,
I support the adoption as coauthor.
I'm not aware of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this document.
Cheers,
Tianran
-Original Message-
From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel Halpern
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 8:44 AM
To: SPRING WG List
Cc: 6man
Su
Hi Everyone,
Would you mind reviewing this draft?
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection/
Thanks much.
Best Regards,
Huaimo
___
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
Dear All,
I support the adoption as coauthor.
The relevant IPRs, which are almost the same as RFC9343, will be disclosed soon.
Regarding the aspects noted by the chairs, it is assumed that only the routers
identified in the SRH segment list can read the SRH TLV and perform the
measurement. All
Hi WG,
After reading the draft, I understand the motivation of the draft, and how the
mechanism works. I think when implementing Alt-marking in SRv6, using TLV is a
good way, because it is flexible and extensible for future.
I think the draft reach the point of adopting as WG draft, so I suppor
