Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

ing-nsh-sr > > > > Hi Jim, > > > > Thanks for your reply. > > Please see inline [Bruno] > > > > *From:* spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org ] *On > Behalf Of *James Guichard > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 18, 2021 5:13 PM > *To:* DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN ; sp

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

cra...@orange.com>>; spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-spring-nsh...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-spring-nsh...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr Hi Bruno, Following up on this. Please see inline. From: bruno.decra...@

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

lto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>>; spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-spring-nsh...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-spring-nsh...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr Hi Bruno, Following up on this. Please see inline. From:

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-spring-nsh...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr Hi Bruno, Following up on this. Please see inline. From: bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com> mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>> Sent: Tuesda

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

to:spring@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-spring-nsh...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-spring-nsh...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr Hi Bruno, Following up on this. Please see inline. From: bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com> mailto:b

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi Jim, Thanks for your reply. Please see inline [Bruno] From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Guichard Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 5:13 PM To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN ; spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-spring-nsh...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi Bruno, Following up on this. Please see inline. From: bruno.decra...@orange.com Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 1:41 PM To: spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-spring-nsh...@ietf.org Subject: RE: WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr Hi authors, WG, Speaking as the shepherd. Thanks for the -04

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi Dhruv, Inline. From: Dhruv Dhody Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 2:11 AM To: James Guichard Cc: bruno.decra...@orange.com; spring@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring-nsh...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr Hi Jim, - Section 4, The behavior of remembering the

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi Jim, > > - Section 4, > >The behavior of remembering the SR stack occurs at the end of the >regularly defined logic. The behavior of reattaching the stack >occurs before the SR process of forwarding the packet to the next >entry in the segment-list. Both behaviors are further

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Operation Division E: gregory.mir...@ztetx.com www.zte.com.cn Original Mail Sender: JamesGuichard To: Greg Mirsky;Bruno Decraene; CC: spring@ietf.org;draft-ietf-spring-nsh...@ietf.org; Date: 2021/05/12 04:36 Subject: Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spr

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi Dhruv, Please see inline. From: Dhruv Dhody Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 10:20 AM To: bruno.decra...@orange.com Cc: spring@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring-nsh...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr Hi WG, I support the publication of this I-D. A few comments

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi Greg, Please see inline. From: Greg Mirsky Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 2:38 AM To: Bruno Decraene Cc: spring@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring-nsh...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr Dear All, I have several questions about the draft: * When using

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi authors, Jim, > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-05 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-05 Thanks for the updated -05. -05 addresses my latest comment and I believe the comment fr

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi authors, As a friendly remainder, during WG LC some questions and comments have been raised. Please resolve the point raised and update the draft as needed. Thanks, Bruno From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 7:3

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi Everyone, I read through the document and support its publication. Best Regards, Huaimo From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 7:31 PM To: spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-spring-nsh...@ietf.org Subject: [sprin

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi WG, I support the publication of this I-D. A few comments - - Section 2 A classifier SHOULD assign an NSH Service Path Identifier (SPI) per SR policy so that different traffic flows that use the same NSH Service Function Path (SFP) but different SR policy can coexist on the same SF

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

ietf-spring-nsh...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr Dear WG, We received very few support and review so far: two reviews excluding the authors and including the shepherd. Thanks Greg for the review. To allow for more feedback, the WG last call is extended for two

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hello, folks, I support this document to progress to IESG. Best regards Chongfeng xie...@chinatelecom.cn From: bruno.decra...@orange.com Date: 2021-03-05 01:45 To: spring@ietf.org CC: draft-ietf-spring-nsh...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr Dear WG, We

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

I agree with your observation Bruno and I believe it is better to go for the more optimal approach using next header From: spring on behalf of Bruno Decraene Date: Monday, 15 March 2021 at 16:44 To: "spring@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-spring-nsh...@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi， I support the publication. It describes the solution to support SFC by the integration of NSH and SR. It is useful. Best regards, Cong From: bruno.decra...@orange.com Date: 2021-03-05 01:45 To: spring@ietf.org CC: draft-ietf-spring-nsh...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi authors, SPRING, Speaking as shepherd. Encapsulation of NSH following SRv6 may be indicated either by encapsulating NSH in UDP (UDP port TBA1) and indicating UDP in the Next Header field of the SRH, or by indicating an IP protocol number for NSH in the Next Header of the SRH." Yes,

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi Bruno, I've read this document and support its publication. Best regards, Jie From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com Sent: Friday, March 5, 2021 1:45 AM To: spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-spring-nsh...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] WG Last

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

I have read the draft. I think it is very useful to have a solution that integrates the Network Server Header and the Segment routing. I support the publication. Linda Dunbar From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi, I have read the draft and support the publication. Thanks, Zhibo From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com Sent: Friday, March 5, 2021 1:45 AM To: spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-spring-nsh...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi, I have read the draft and support the publication. Thanks, Shunwan From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 2:31 AM To: spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-spring-nsh...@ietf.org Subject: [spring] WG Last Call draft

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Dear WG, We received very few support and review so far: two reviews excluding the authors and including the shepherd. Thanks Greg for the review. To allow for more feedback, the WG last call is extended for two weeks until March 18. In the meantime, authors are invited to reply to the comment

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Dear All, I have several questions about the draft: - When using the approach described in Section 4, i.e., SR-based SFC with the integrated NSH, how does a re-Classifier scenario be handled? If I understand it correctly, a re-Classifier can change the SPI of the NSH coming back from t

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

As a co-author I believe this should progress. Not aware of an implementation though From: spring on behalf of Bruno Decraene Date: Tuesday, 9 February 2021 at 19:31 To: "spring@ietf.org" Cc: "draft-ietf-spring-nsh...@ietf.org" Subject: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr Dear WG,

Re: [spring] WG Last Call draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr

Hi authors, WG, Speaking as the shepherd. Thanks for the -04 which answer my previous set of comments. I've reviewed the document again, focusing on the new text. Please find below some additional comments. === SR-MPLS §6.1 " At the end of the SR-MPLS path it is necessary to provide an in