Support WG adoption. I think the draft covers more than just SR policy, e.g. also QoS requirements / guidelines. This may be reflected in the title and purpose of the draft. Also SR policy alone is not sufficient to meet all the requirements described in the introduction.
Couple of review points: - Terminology / wording of QoS requirements in this draft are slightly different than that in the PLE document, is this on purpose? (e.g. the latter describes low loss / low jitter, the policy draft focuses more one bandwidth available) - Policing / shaping traffic for an SR policy (3.1) could impact delay / loss. Not sure if this function should be coupled to the SR path or rather be part of the "service" function so that shaping is done service aware? - Section 7.1, last paragraph, should the second reference be the same as the first? The headend forms the bidirectional SR Policy association using the procedure described in [I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path] and receives the information about the reverse segment list from the PCE as described in section 4.5 of [I-D.ietf-pce-multipath] cheers, Eduard On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 3:46 PM Bernier, Daniel <daniel.bernier= 40bell...@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Hi > > Support the adoption to WG > > Daniel Bernier > > On 2023-05-16, 10:04 AM, "spring on behalf of IETF Secretariat" < > spring-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of > ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org <mailto:ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org>> > wrote: > > > > > The SPRING WG has placed draft-schmutzer-spring-cs-sr-policy in state > Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Joel Halpern) > > > The document is available at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schmutzer-spring-cs-sr-policy/ < > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schmutzer-spring-cs-sr-policy/> > > > Comment: > This starts a two week adoption call for the subject draft. Please speak up > if you support or object to WG adoption. Two notes: 1) WG adoption is the > start of the process. The basic question is whether you agree that the > subject is worth the working group time to work on, and whether this > represents a good starting point for the work. 2) Please include > explanation > for your view. Yes or no are not very helpful answers, as this is not a > vote > but an evaluation of support and concerns. Thank you, Joel (for the WG > Chairs) > > > We expect to close this call at the end of May, 2023. > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring < > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > External Email: Please use caution when opening links and attachments / > Courriel externe: Soyez prudent avec les liens et documents joints > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
