Re: [spring] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On February 17, 2022 at 10:06:39 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: Ketan: Hi! I am looking at -18.  Thanks for adding the Updates tag -- you need to also add text to the Introduction about the update. Comments inline... > > -- > >

Re: [spring] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On March 5, 2022 at 5:29:36 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: Ketan: Hi! > We have also just posted an update to address some of the comments below and > from other ADs. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-19 That version addresses my DISCUSS -- I'm clea

[spring] spring WG Adoption Call for draft-cheng-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-by-dhcp

Dear WG: This message starts a two-week adoption call for draft-cheng-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-by-dhcp, ending on July/19. It "describes the method of assigning locators to SRv6 Endpoints through DHCPv6".     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheng-spring-distribute-srv6-locator-by-dhcp/

[spring] IPR Poll for draft-cheng-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-by-dhcp (adoption)

Dear authors: Are you aware of any IPR that applies to this draft? Please state either:   "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft."     or    "Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft." If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see BCP78 and

Re: [spring] SPRING Session Agenda for 117

[Thanks Shuping!] To all the authors/presenters: If your draft hasn’t had significant discussion on the list, please take time to share the proposal/updates *before* the meeting. Doing so should facilitate the conversation in San Francisco. Thanks! Alvaro. On July 11, 2023 at 11:31:39 PM, Pen

Re: [spring] Question regarding draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression

On August 2, 2023 at 1:59:13 AM, Tal Mizrahi wrote: Tal: Hi! > A question to the chairs: is the L4 checksum issue something that can > be resolved in SPRING, or does it have to go through 6MAN? If the resolution requires an update to rfc8200, 6man has to be involved.  This document (a spring do

[spring] Call for Authors: SRv6 Security Considerations

Dear WG: As mentioned at last week's meeting in San Francisco [1], the WG will produce a document to provide a solid security analysis of SRv6.  It will examine SRv6 as currently specified, identify threats, analyze mitigation mechanisms, and highlight gaps, but not propose solutions. The chairs

[spring] Performance Measurement using STAMP for SR Merge (draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm + draft-gandhi-spring-enhanced-srpm)

Dear WG: As discussed at the WG meeting in San Francisco [1], the authors of draft-gandhi-spring-enhanced-srpm [2] have requested merging the procedure defined there into draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm [3] [4]. There wasn't any objection to doing so during the meeting.  If anyone objects to the mer

[spring] SRv6 Security Considerations (author team)

Dear WG: We received a good set of volunteers to serve as authors in developing a document to provide a solid security analysis of SRv6 [1].  Thank you to all who volunteered! This is the team the chairs selected:   Nick Buraglio   Luis Contreras   Fernando Gont   Tal Mizrahi   Tian Tong While

Re: [spring] Performance Measurement using STAMP for SR Merge (draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm + draft-gandhi-spring-enhanced-srpm)

Hi! No objections were received. The authors can go ahead with the merge. Thanks! Alvaro. On August 31, 2023 at 11:57:54 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.i...@gmail.com) wrote: Dear WG: As discussed at the WG meeting in San Francisco [1], the authors of draft-gandhi-spring-enhanced-srpm [2] have

Re: [spring] Fw:New Version Notificationfordraft-cheng-spring-srv6-resource-programming-01.txt

WenYing: Hi! I have added this draft to the adoption queue in the WG’s wiki: https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/spring In the meantime, we would like to see more comments from the list. Also, the Security Considerations are empty. Please work on appropriate text. Thanks! Alvaro. On September 28

[spring] Relationship between draft-cheng-spring-srv6-policy-resource-gurantee and draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments

Dear authors (of draft-cheng-spring-srv6-policy-resource-gurantee): Hi! Building on Jie's comments at IETF 115 [1] and this text from the Introduction: "On the basis of [I-D.ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments], this document defines a new SRv6 Endpoint behavior...", please clarify the relationsh

Re: [spring] Relationship betweendraft-cheng-spring-srv6-policy-resource-gurantee anddraft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments

On October 12, 2023 at 11:37:01 PM, 姜文颖 wrote: WenYing: Hi! > We received the similar comments before IETF 107 [1] and the authors of both > drafts had worked together to resolve it in the latest version. We has > clarified the scope in draft-cheng and has changed the name of the draft to > "d

Re: [spring] IPR Poll for draft-cheng-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-by-dhcp (adoption)

Hi! We’re still missing a response to this poll from Geng Zhang (cc’d). Please reply so we can move on with this document. Thanks! Alvaro. On July 5, 2023 at 8:01:01 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.i...@gmail.com) wrote: Dear authors: Are you aware of any IPR that applies to this draft? Please

Re: [spring] spring WG Adoption Call for draft-cheng-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-by-dhcp

). The submission window should open again during IETF 118. Thanks! Alvaro. On July 5, 2023 at 8:00:03 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.i...@gmail.com) wrote: Dear WG: This message starts a two-week adoption call for draft-cheng-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-by-dhcp, ending on July/19. It "desc

Re: [spring] Missing review material for the 15-minute slot for SRv6 Security Considerations (was: Re: SPRING Session Agenda for 118)

On November 2, 2023 at 5:25:37 AM, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote: Zafar: Hi! > It is odd that design team [1] has a 15-minute prime slot in SPRING agenda > while it has not produced any draft (see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2418.html#section-3.1). Let me start by saying that the authors of t

[spring] Mail regarding draft-ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang

Dear authors: I hope you're all doing well. This document expired in March/2023, but I haven't seen anything from you on the list since the last update. Are you still interested in proceeding with this work?  If so, please post an update with fewer front-page authors (5 maximum).  Also, please l

[spring] Mail regarding draft-ietf-spring-srv6-yang

Dear authors: I hope you're all doing well. This document expired in March/2023, but I haven't seen anything from you on the list since the last update. Are you still interested in proceeding with this work?  If so, please post an update with fewer front-page authors (5 maximum).  Also, please l

Re: [spring] Mail regarding draft-ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang

[Adding Shunwan explicitly because the message bounced.] On January 9, 2024 at 1:12:19 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.i...@gmail.com) wrote: Dear authors: I hope you're all doing well. This document expired in March/2023, but I haven't seen anything from you on the list since the l

[spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11

Dear authors: In parallel with the WGLC I have reviewed this document.  Thank you for the work you've put into it so far. I have several comments (in-line below) that I would like to see addressed.  In general, I think my comments should be relatively easy to address.  I want to highlight one poi

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call - draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection (02/09/24 - 02/24/24)

Hi! Now that the terminology is a little more precise, I also looked at the document and found a couple of cases where SIDs are skipped by SRv6 segment endpoints, which is what Ketan is really concerned about (?). These cases (see below) do not align with rfc8754 or rfc8986. IMO, any proposed de

Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11

On February 29, 2024 at 12:50:46 PM, Francois Clad wrote: Francois: Hi! > We have integrated those changes as part of revisions -12 and -13 of the > document. Please find our detailed replies inline. I have put comments below as well, and deleted any parts were we agree or no more discussion is

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call - draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection (02/09/24 - 02/24/24)

On March 4, 2024 at 6:46:33 AM, Huzhibo wrote: Zhibo: Hi! ... > ->HZB:rfc8754 or rfc8986 only defines that Processing is not changed by > this document. This is only a general description of the standard SRv6, not a > mandatory specification. rfc8754 and rfc8986 are the SRv6 specifications!

Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11

this document WITHOUT correct review by 6man will result in an appeal. Thanks Andrew * Internal All Employees From: *spring on behalf of Francois Clad *Date: *Monday, 18 March 2024 at 17:50 *To: *Alvaro Retana *Cc: *SPRING WG List *Subject: *Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf

Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11

FWIW, I agree with most of what Joel wrote. ;-) I see another path forward: Given that the issue is constrained to an SR domain, the draft could also point out the issues as operational/deployment considerations. Operators can then make an informed decision on whether they want to/can use C-SIDs w

Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11

Tom: Hi! I understand your point. I put the option out there because it came up at last week’s spring meeting and it should be discussed. Thanks! Alvaro. On March 25, 2024 at 2:58:48 PM, Tom Herbert (t...@herbertland.com) wrote: On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 11:17 AM Alvaro Retana wrote

Re: [spring] Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11

On March 18, 2024 at 10:49:39 AM, Francois Clad wrote: Francois: Hi!  Thanks for the update! > Detailed replies inline. These include your follow-up comments as well as the > review items that we missed in the first pass. > > Please let us know if you have any further feedback. I have some sug

Re: [spring] [EXTERNAL] Re: Chair Review of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-11

Hi! This discussion has now moved beyond the specifics of this document (subject line) and spring's scope. Please move the discussion to a new thread where both spring and 6man are cc'd. Thanks! Alvaro. ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https:/

[spring] Separating Threads (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)

Dear WG: While the chairs strongly appreciate the engagement in the discussions around the SRv6 compression draft, several topics have gotten tangled, and the subject lines do not help track the conversation. Following this note will be two messages intended to serve as an anchor for separate aspe

[spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)

Section 6.5 of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression describes the behavior when an originating node inside an SRv6 domain creates a packet with a C-SID as the final destination. This description differs from the text in Section 8.1 of RFC8200. We plan to send the draft to the 6man WG for review

[spring] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SIDs (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)

Focusing on the C-SID draft, some have suggested requiring the presence of the SRH whenever C-SIDs are used. Please discuss whether that is the desired behavior (or not) -- please be specific when debating the benefits or consequences of either behavior. Please keep the related (but independent) d

Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)

[Moving this message up on everyone’s mailbox.] Dear WG: We have received no replies to this request. If no changes are needed to §6.5 then that is ok, but if you have a different opinion please speak up. Thanks! Alvaro. On March 28, 2024 at 8:04:30 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.i...@gmail.com

Re: [spring] Subject: Mandating SRH when using C-SIDs (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)

. Thanks! Alvaro. On March 28, 2024 at 8:06:18 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.i...@gmail.com) wrote: Focusing on the C-SID draft, some have suggested requiring the presence of the SRH whenever C-SIDs are used. Please discuss whether that is the desired behavior (or not) -- please be specific when

Re: [spring] Relationship between draft-cheng-spring-srv6-policy-resource-gurantee and draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments

On October 24, 2023 at 9:35:32 PM, 姜文颖 wrote: [Your reply had changed the subject, so my filters didn't catch it. :-(  Changing the subject back to the original.] Wenying: Hi! Following up from the discussion @ IETF 119. ... > > Do we need this new extension, or is > > I-D.ietf-spring-resourc

Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)

On April 3, 2024 at 7:59:20 AM, Andrew Alston - IETF wrote: > Just a clarification – I believe my comments on section 6.5 have been well > documented in other threads – would you like them duplicated here for > clarity? Yes, we do. Thanks! Alvaro. __

Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer checksums (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)

w End of quoted email Thanks Andrew * Internal All Employees From: *Alvaro Retana *Date: *Wednesday, 3 April 2024 at 15:40 *To: *Andrew Alston - IETF , SPRING WG List < spring@ietf.org> *Cc: *spring-cha...@ietf.org *Subject: *Re: [spring] C-SIDs and upper layer chec

[spring] Dependency Issues (WAS: I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-bfd-09.txt)

On January 27, 2024 at 3:00:04 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: Greg/authors: Hi! > The draft is stable, and the authors believe that it is ready for the WG LC. > We appreciate your consideration of moving this work forward to the WG LC. I took a quick look at this document, and we need to address a co

Re: [spring] Dependency Issues (WAS: I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-bfd-09.txt)

On April 15, 2024 at 5:16:35 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: Greg: ... > > (1) I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-anycast-segments ... > > Before we try to revive it, is the reference needed? This paragraph > > is the only one that talks about anycast. Also, it sounds (from the > > last sentence) as if more could be s

Re: [spring] Dependency Issues (WAS: I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-bfd-09.txt)

On April 16, 2024 at 3:55:44 AM, Greg Mirsky wrote: Greg: ... > > > > (1) I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-anycast-segments ... > GIM2>> You're right; the IDR document does not define an Anycast SID (and has > no reference to the document that does, but that is not our problem now). > Could we use RFC 8402 a

Re: [spring] Dependency Issues (WAS: I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-bfd-09.txt)

On April 17, 2024 at 5:49:09 AM, Greg Mirsky wrote: Greg: > thank you for pointing out to me that although RFC 8402 defines the > Anycast-SID, that there's no Anycast-SID sub-TLV in the IANA registry > Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21.  Thus, we remove that paragraph and > references. Ok.  I

[spring] IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-spring-bfd

Dear authors and contributors: Are you aware of any IPR that applies to this draft? If so, has it been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see BCP78 and BCP79 for more details)?  For any undisclosed IPR, please provide any additional information you think appropriate. If you are listed

[spring] BFD in SR-MPLS (draft-ietf-spring-bfd)

Dear mpls WG: The spring WG is moving towards a WGLC of this document: "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) in Segment Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane".  From the Abstract:    This document defines how to use Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping to    bootstrap a BFD session, optional contro

[spring] BFD in SR-MPLS (draft-ietf-spring-bfd)

Dear bfd WG: The spring WG is moving towards a WGLC of this document: "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) in Segment Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane".  From the Abstract:    This document defines how to use Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping to    bootstrap a BFD session, optional control

Re: [spring] Relationship betweendraft-cheng-spring-srv6-policy-resource-gurantee anddraft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments

On April 21, 2024 at 9:56:07 PM, Wenying Jiang wrote: Wenying: Hi! ... > > It is not clear to me that the two mechanisms cannot solve the same > > use cases.  The difference is in this detail: > > > > I-D.cheng-spring-srv6-policy-resource-gurantee: proposes allocating a SID > >    with the End.

Re: [spring] Relationship betweendraft-cheng-spring-srv6-policy-resource-gurantee anddraft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments

On April 22, 2024 at 2:46:00 AM, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: Jie: Hi! ... > [Jie] In my understanding, both documents propose enhancements to SR to solve > the requirements for resource guarantee in SR networks. > > The essential is that SR SIDs can be used to indicate not only the function > (or b

[spring] Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-spring-bfd

3, 2024 at 5:39 PM Alvaro Retana > wrote: > >> Dear authors and contributors: >> >> Are you aware of any IPR that applies to this draft? >> >> If so, has it been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see >> BCP78 and BCP79 for more details)? For any u

[spring] Re: IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-spring-bfd

邮件原文 *发件人：*Alvaro Retana *收件人：*Wenying Jiang *抄 送: *spring-chairs ,SPRING WG List < spring@ietf.org>,draft-ietf-spring-bfd *发送时间：*2024-05-07 05:32:13 *主题：*Re: [spring] IPR Disclosures for draft-ietf-spring-bfd Thanks for the responses. I’m adding Wenying specifically because t

[spring] Re: request for review and comments

[spring-chair hat off + idr] Hi! I took a quick look at the draft -- it uses existing TLVs to convey the information, which is good. Given that (IIRC) BGP-LS does not limit TLVs' use as sub-TLVs, rfc9085 already contemplates using the Adjacency SID TLV (as a sub-TLV), and rfc9086 already says th

[spring] Re: request for review and comments

Hi! If you want to formally update other RFCs, you need to do several other things: include a tag in the header, indicate the update in the Abstract and Introduction, and indicate what are the text changes (if any) to the original RFCs. While I still think the (formal) update is not needed, it ma

[spring] Re: [Idr] Question about the draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-net-pgm-insertion

Hi! That draft is not in the adoption queue. Alvaro. On May 15, 2024 at 4:13:50 PM, linchangwang (linchangwang.04...@h3c.com) wrote: Dear SPRING experts, It is currently uncertain whether the defined behavior of H.Insert and H.Insert.Red in the draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-net-pgm-insertion (

[spring] Fwd: [Idr] Interim meeting on 5/20 - On BGP drafts on BGP-LS and SR asking for Adoption

FYI On May 17, 2024 at 12:17:09 PM, Susan Hares (sha...@ndzh.com) wrote: On Monday 5/20/2024, IDR will be holding an interim meeting from 10-12pm EDT. This meeting reviews five drafts for BGP-LS and SR routing. The details are below. Cheerily, Sue Hares == Interim meet

[spring] Re: IPR confirmation for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-security

Hi! We still haven’t received all the required replies. We need then to move this document forward. Thanks! Alvaro. On April 2, 2024 at 12:24:38 PM, Joel Halpern (j...@joelhalpern.com) wrote: Can the authors (and listed contributors) please confirm to the working group email list that all IPR

[spring] Early Allocation for draft-ietf-spring-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-dhcp

Dear spring WG: [cc’ing the DHC WG + dhc-chairs for information.] The authors of draft-ietf-spring-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-dhcp have requested early allocation of the DHCPv6 Option Codes specified in the draft. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-

[spring] C-SIDs and Upper-Layer Checksums (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression)

Dear 6man WG: As you may be aware, the spring WG is in the process of advancing draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression [1]. The WGLC discussions have resulted in the need to ask you the following questions (see below) related to the use/operation of compressed SIDs (C-SIDs). Please provide any op

[spring] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy-03.txt

On January 7, 2024 at 3:12:20 AM, Dhruv Dhody wrote: Dhruv: Hi! > The document was last presented in IETF 115 by Gyan and has 2 updates since > then. It is ready to undergo a WG adoption call. > > Note that there are WG documents in PCE and IDR that depend on it. Before starting an adoption cal

[spring] IPR Disclosures for draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy

Dear authors and contributors: Are you aware of any IPR that applies to this draft? If so, has it been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see BCP78 and BCP79 for more details)?  For any undisclosed IPR, please provide any additional information you think appropriate. If you are listed

[spring] spring WG Adoption Call for draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy

Dear WG: This message starts a two-week adoption call for draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy, ending on July/2nd. From the Abstract:    This document defines the Path MTU (PMTU) for Segment Routing (SR)    Policy (called SR-PMTU). It applies to both Segment Routing over IPv6    (SRv6) and SR-MPLS.

[spring] Re: [pim] wglc: draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping

Hi! I'm not opposed to advancing this draft, but it still needs some work -- see comments in-line below. My main concern is that there is no specification contained in the document. Instead, this sentence appears in §3.1: "This draft reuses most procedures for mLDP in RFC [RFC6425]" It is not c

[spring] Fwd: WG Action: Formed SRv6 Operations (srv6ops)

ICYMI — FYI The IESG chartered this new WG. Please look at the charter below — there will be close coordination between spring and srv6ops. Join the srv6ops mailing list if you’re interestef in SRv6 deployments. The chairs recently issued a call for agenda items for their first meeting at IETF

[spring] Re: I-D Action: draft-dong-spring-sr-policy-with-nrp-00.txt

Jie: Thanks for following up on the discussion from the idr interim meeting and putting this draft together! There is clear overlap with draft-jiang-spring-sr-policy-nrp. Please work with all the other authors on creating a single document based on draft-dong-spring-sr-policy-with-nrp. Given t

[spring] Chair Review of draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy-03

Dear authors: As part of the adoption call I have comments related to this draft. Please see details in-line. Thanks! Alvaro. [Line numbers from idnits.] ... 137 3.  Terminology 139      Link MTU: As per [RFC4821], the Maximum Transmission Unit, i.e., 140      maximum IP packe

[spring] Re: spring WG Adoption Call for draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy

be addressed as we move forward. Please reply to any outstanding comments/reviews indicating how the comments are handled in an updated version of the draft. Thanks! Alvaro. On June 18, 2024 at 11:41:33 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.i...@gmail.com) wrote: Dear WG: This message starts a two-week

[spring] Re: [pim] Re: wglc: draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping

On June 24, 2024 at 11:59:13 PM, Hooman Bidgoli wrote: Hooman: Hi!  Sorry it took me so long to get back. ... > > My main concern is that there is no specification contained in the > > document. Instead, this sentence appears in §3.1: "This draft reuses most > > procedures for mLDP in RFC [RFC64

[spring] Re: [pim] Re: wglc: draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping

cy should follow RFC 6425 common procedures for P2MP MPLS LSPs." -Original Message- From: Hooman Bidgoli (Nokia) Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 6:15 PM To: Alvaro Retana ; Michael McBride < michael.mcbr...@futurewei.com>; p...@ietf.org Cc: spring@ietf.org Subject: [spring] Re: [pim]

[spring] Fwd: [Srv6ops] SRv6OPS WG Agenda for IETF 120

FYI On July 10, 2024 at 11:56:21 AM, Dhruv Dhody (d...@dhruvdhody.com) wrote: Hi WG, The **draft** agenda for the very first SRv6OPS WG sessions during IETF 120 is posted -https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-120-srv6ops/ Please unicast us if there is any change needed. Please note that the

[spring] spring Charter Update (charter-ietf-spring)

Dear WG: We last updated the WG's charter almost 6 years ago. Given the time and the recent chartering of the srv6ops WG, it is time to look at it again. :-) Besides any changes to consider srv6ops (minimum), the proposed charter focuses on describing the scope of the expected work. As it is toda

[spring] Fwd: [Idr] Adoption call for draft-peng-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-attr-11 (7/12/2024 to 7/26/2024)

spring WG: With the build up to IETF 120 we missed forwarding this message to the list for comments. :-( Please let the idr WG (reply to this message) if you have issues with the adoption of this document in idr or the alignment with spring’s work. Thankjs! Alvaro. On July 12, 2024 at 6:21:57 

[spring] Re: The SPRING WG has placed draft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-security in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

Hi! Thanks for the early replies and offer to review, but this thread is not the WG adoption call. The document is just a "Candidate for WG Adoption”. ;-) I hope to send an explicit message about adoption in a week or so. When we do, the status of the document will move to "Call For Adoption By

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

Dear WG: This message starts a two-week adoption call for ddraft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-security, ending on August/19. From the Abstract:    This document discusses security considerations in SRv6 networks,    including the potential threats and the possible mitigation methods.    The document does n

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

On August 7, 2024 at 3:07:12 PM, Yingzhen Qu wrote: Hi! > The current intended status of this document is "Standards Track", is this > intentional? Yes, it is.  The document is intended to be a "companion" to the existing documents. However, the status is not "written in stone": it can be chan

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

On August 10, 2024 at 12:35:05 PM, Boris Hassanov wrote: Hi Boris! Thanks for the review! ... > Will the authors propose any kind of solution here besides the problem > statement? The intent of the draft is to document Security Considerations related to SRv6 as it is defined.  Along the same l

[spring] Re: following-up discussion on draft-liu-spring-aggregate-header-limit-problem

Hi! IMHO, we don’t need to formally update all those other documents — maybe just the one that initially defined the term. The important thing here is that it can be done with a single document: the other documents wouldn’t need to be republished. Alvaro. On August 14, 2024 at 5:32:32 AM, liu.y

[spring] Chair Review of draft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-security-02 (Adoption)

Dear authors: Thank you for taking on this work! I am providing this review with my Chair Hat on in parallel with the adoption call.  Please consider it in addition to the other comments you receive. In general, the current draft is a very good start!  I know it is a work in progress, and I exp

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

On August 19, 2024 at 1:03:58 PM, Zafar Ali wrote: Zafar: Hi! > I support the adoption call. > > However, I believe the document should be “informational.” Do you have a specific reason? The intended status should depend on the content and its relationship to other documents.  It is too earl

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

the comments prevent adoption. Please go ahead and publish draft-ietf-spring-srv6-security. Thanks! Alvaro. On August 5, 2024 at 9:04:14 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.i...@gmail.com) wrote: Dear WG: This message starts a two-week adoption call for ddraft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-security, ending on

[spring] Call for Comments: spring charter Update (Ends Sep/18.2024 / charter-ietf-spring)

Dear WG: As mentioned in July [1] and discussed in Vancouver [2], we have started the process to recharter the WG.  This email starts a two-week call for comments on the updated charter until EOD on September 18, 2024. Once this call for comments is over, we will let our AD handle the process. I

[spring] Re: spring Charter Update (charter-ietf-spring)

On September 5, 2024 at 10:57:33 AM, Greg Mirsky wrote: Hi Greg! > thank you for sharing the proposed updates to the SPRING charter. It all > looks good to me. I have a minor proposal to the extend the list of the > topics on which SPRING collaborates and coordinates adding the following: > IPPM

[spring] Re: Shepherd review for draft-ietf-spring-bfd-10

On August 28, 2024 at 7:31:23 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: Greg: Hi! ... > > 516 12. Security Considerations > > > > 518 Security considerations discussed in [RFC5880], [RFC5884], [RFC7726], > > 519 and [RFC8029] apply to this document. > > > > < minor > I think some more text would be required here

[spring] Re: Shepherd review for draft-ietf-spring-bfd-10

>>. I've included the diff to highlight the updates applied in the new working version (somehow, idnits missed another outdated reference). Regards, Greg On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 2:05 PM Alvaro Retana wrote: > On August 28, 2024 at 7:31:23 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: &g

[spring] Re: Updates made on draft-ietf-spring-pmtu-sr-policy-01 RE: Chair Review of draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy-03

hank you! Best Regards, Shuping -Original Message- From: Alvaro Retana [mailto:aretana.i...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 2:03 AM To: draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-pol...@ietf.org Cc: SPRING WG Subject: Chair Review of draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy-03 Dear authors: As par

[spring] Automated Disclaimers (RE: Request to close…)

On March 2, 2020 at 1:21:25 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: [Changed the subject to better reflect the topic and for easier tracking.] SM: Hi!  How are you? > I sent a message to the SPRING Working Group Chairs. The reply which > I received from a person who is listed as one of the SPRING Working > Gro

Re: [spring] Appeal to the IESG re WGLC of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

On June 3, 2020 at 1:16:48 AM, Fernando Gont wrote: Fernando: Hi!  How are you? ... > Note: I fail to see your analysis regarding technical objection #3: Your > analysis focuses on RFC8200 (the focus of technical objection #2), but > doesn't even mention RFC8754 (the relevant RFC for technical

Re: [spring] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On September 25, 2020 at 2:28:53 PM, Pablo Camarillo wrote: Pablo: Hi! I still have a couple of comments related to the DISCUSS portion.  And some non-blocking comments later on. I looked at -22. Thanks! Alvaro. > -- > DIS

Re: [spring] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On September 30, 2020 at 9:18:37 AM, Pablo Camarillo wrote: Pablo: Hi! Just leaving below the points I still want to talk about. Thanks! Alvaro. ... > > -- > > DISCUSS: > > --

Re: [spring] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Thanks Pablo! I’m clearing my DISCUSS. Alvaro. On October 7, 2020 at 12:08:27 PM, Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) ( pcama...@cisco.com) wrote: Note that we have just posted rev24 as per the comments below. ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://ww

Re: [spring] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-29: (with COMMENT)

inline. Please let us know if you have more comments. Thanks, Yingzhen On Jan 20, 2021, at 7:36 AM, Alvaro Retana via Datatracker wrote: Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-29: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-12

Dear authors: Hi! It’s been 2 months since I sent out this review and I still haven’t heard anything back (not even an ACK!) from you.  What is the plan to address the comments and move this work forward? Thanks! Alvaro. From: spring on behalf of Alvaro Retana Date

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-12

On October 28, 2017 at 10:51:52 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ( ginsb...@cisco.com ) wrote: Les: Hi! Apologies for the long delay in responding. The transference of the pen from Stefano resulted in a longer delay than it should have. Thanks for taking this on! As a new author: are you aware of

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-12

On November 2, 2017 at 7:59:31 AM, stefano previdi (stef...@previdi.net) wrote: Stefano: Hi! > I would also strongly recommend that you include a Deployment/Operations Section. what exactly would you expect to find in such section ? We have the Manageability section which illustrates how SR ca

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-10

On October 30, 2017 at 2:12:18 PM, Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy) ( basha...@cisco.com ) wrote: Ahmed: Hi! How are you? ... The main questions/concerns that I have related to this document is not just for the authors, but for the Shepherd and the Chairs too. Q1. Why is this document on the Standa

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-06

On October 30, 2017 at 1:53:07 AM, Gaurav Dawra (gdawra) (gda...@cisco.com) wrote: Gaurav: Hi! Thanks for taking over this document! I have some remaining comments below, please take a look. I’m starting the IETF Last Call, which will be extended to account for the IETF meeting and the US Holi

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-12

Les: Hi! I don’t think I got a reply on the IPR question below. Thanks! Alvaro. On November 1, 2017 at 3:55:00 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.i...@gmail.com) wrote: Les: Hi! Apologies for the long delay in responding. The transference of the pen from Stefano resulted in a longer delay than it

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-10

Ahmed: Hi! It’s been almost a month, and I haven’t seen a reply from you. I will send the document back to the WG by the end of this week. Thanks! Alvaro. On November 2, 2017 at 6:49:10 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.i...@gmail.com) wrote: On October 30, 2017 at 2:12:18 PM, Ahmed Bashandy

Re: [spring] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-13: (with COMMENT)

On December 13, 2017 at 9:58:42 AM, Adam Roach (a...@nostrum.com) wrote: Adam: Hi! Thanks to everyone who put in work on this document. I do note that the list of authors is over the five-author recommended limit. I checked both the ballot and the shepherd write-up, and was a little surprised n

Re: [spring] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-11: (with COMMENT)

On December 14, 2017 at 7:35:10 AM, Mirja Kühlewind (i...@kuehlewind.net) wrote: Mirja: Hi! Minor question regarding SPRING in Core networks (section 2.5): Why is SR here bettter than MPLS (which I guess is used today for this use case)? In gener

[spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-09

Dear authors: I just finished reading this document. I have some Major comments below that I would like to see addressed before starting the IETF LC. Thanks for your work on this document. Alvaro. Major: M1. From Section 2: "An MCC, operating at node N, MUST ensure that the incoming label it

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-06

On December 21, 2017 at 9:39:49 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com ( bruno.decra...@orange.com) wrote: I see that you have also added the “note” on for the VPN routes. I don’t think it’s necessary here as: - if both routes are VPN ones, they are both labelled and are comparable as per regular BGP/MPLS

Re: [spring] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alissa: Hi! Any thoughts on the update to this document? Thanks! Alvaro. On December 20, 2017 at 6:18:13 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ( ginsb...@cisco.com) wrote: Alissa - Thanx for the review. V14 has been published and it attempts to address the Security concerns raised by you and others. L

Re: [spring] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-13: (with DISCUSS)

Kathleen: Hi! Any thoughts on the update to this document? Thanks! Alvaro. On December 20, 2017 at 6:42:02 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ( ginsb...@cisco.com) wrote: Kathleen - Thanx for the review. V14 has been published and it attempts to address the Security concerns raised by you and other

Re: [spring] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-13: (with DISCUSS)

2018 10:58 AM > To: Alvaro Retana > Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; The IESG > ; spring@ietf.org; spring-cha...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring- > segment-rout...@ietf.org; martin.vigour...@nokia.com > Subject: Re: Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-segment- > routing-13:

  1   2   3   >