[spring] Re: My question at themikeaboutdraft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming

Hi Joel, Great suggestion and question. This part of the requirement was not expanded in the current draft. We considered that the OAM functions have been supported in the existing underlay TDM technologies and can be used to determine the availability of the underlay connection. We can add som

[spring] Re: My question at the mike about draft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming

Hi Gyan, You39re right, this draft mainly aims to address scenarios where the nodes have MTN or optical channel information and are not IP routers. Transit nodes of the underlay connection only work in MTN or optical channel layer and are not IPaware. The current version have some conten

[spring] Re: draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments

Hi Bruno, Thanks a lot for your review and comments. Please see replies inline: From: bruno.decra...@orange.com [mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com] Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 6:02 PM To: SPRING WG Subject: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments Hi authors, WG. As you expressed beli

[spring] Re: WG Adoption Call for draft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-security (ends Aug/19)

Hi! This message closes the adoption call for this document. There has been enough support to adopt the draft. Authors: You received comments from several people in this thread. Please explicitly respond to them, and, as needed, reflect any change in future versions. I don’t believe any of th

[spring] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: My question at the mike aboutdraft-dong-spring-srv6-inter-layer-programming

Hi Liyuan, My apologies for a delayed response. I have looked up Section 4.2 of RFC 8986 (that defines End.X behavior) and it contains the following statement: When the End.X behavior is associated with a BGP Next-Hop, it is the SRv6

[spring] Re: WG Adoption Call for draft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-security (ends Aug/19)

Thanks Zafar. The authors will follow the recommendations of the chairs and the consensus of the group for the document type. For now, unless there is a clear directive, we can leave the intended status as-is and adjust it accordingly. nb On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 12:04 PM Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:

[spring] Re: WG Adoption Call for draft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-security (ends Aug/19)

On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 12:04 PM Zafar Ali (zali) wrote: > > Hi Alvaro, Bruno, Joel, WG, and authors, > > > > I support the adoption call. > > However, I believe the document should be “informational.” > > > > I have a comment on the section 7.1.1: > > The Section is not specific to SRv6 compressi

[spring] Re: WG Adoption Call for draft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-security (ends Aug/19)

On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 11:29 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote: > > Hi, > > I support adoption. Please find some non-blocking comments that authors can > work on. > > # Minor > > - Should you call out RFC 8986 Network programming in the Introduction? > > - Section 2, it gives the impression that the control