@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] Re: draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm and sidlist optimization
Hi Rakesh and all,
I read the draft, here is my feedback:
1) Draft is useful and augments the overall STAMP picture (RFC 8762, RFC 8972,
RFC 9503 etc.) by exact procedures including new.
Thanks.
2
Hi Zafar & authors
I reviewed the draft and have a few comments.
The draft is a sid list optimization providing an exclusion of the node
sid PCEP extension using a capability flag to signal to include or exclude
based on the use case scenario.
This idea seems very similar in context to RFC 8986
Thank you Boris for the detailed review of the draft.
Let us address your comments in the next revision of the draft.
Regards,
Rakesh (for co-authors)
On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 5:08 AM Boris Hassanov wrote:
> Hi Rakesh and all,
> I read the draft, here is my feedback:
> 1) Draft is useful and a
Hi Rakesh and all,
I read the draft, here is my feedback:
1) Draft is useful and augments the overall STAMP picture (RFC 8762, RFC 8972,
RFC 9503 etc.) by exact procedures including new.
2) Section 4 says "The one-way delay requires the clocks on the Session-Sender
and
Session-Reflector to b
Thank you Zafar for the review comments.
Added in Section 4.5 of Revision-17 (also includes comments from Greg).
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-17.html
Thanks,
Rakesh (for co-authors)
On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 2:38 PM Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:
> Dear authors,
>
>
>
