I support publication of this document. Two minor nits:
1. It would be better to avoid using “PCEP request” in section 5.1 since that can be potentially interpreted as PCReq (PCEP stateless message), but I assume you are pointing to use of PCRpt used in stateful PCEP only. 2. Consider updating some references used in the document (e.g. I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6 -> RFC9603, I-D.ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement -> RFC9488). Thanks, Samuel From: Andrew Stone (Nokia) <andrew.stone=40nokia....@dmarc.ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 5:16 PM To: Christian Schmutzer (cschmutz) <cschmutz=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; Joel Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> Cc: Christian Schmutzer (cschmutz) <cschm...@cisco.com>; SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org> Subject: [spring] Re: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy As co-author, likely goes without saying but I support publication of the document. The document content covers the key topics needed to achieve the desired solution and do not believe more content needs to be added or removed. Thanks Andrew From: Christian Schmutzer (cschmutz) <cschmutz=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:cschmutz=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> Date: Saturday, January 25, 2025 at 2:47 PM To: Joel Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com<mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>> Cc: Christian Schmutzer (cschmutz) <cschm...@cisco.com<mailto:cschm...@cisco.com>>, SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>> Subject: [spring] Re: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Let me break the ice … As a co-author I want to thank everyone who contributed to this document. Addressing transport service requirements in an SR network is important and allowing operators to deploy a converged network. Deployment of Private Line Emulation (PLE) pseudowires defined by draft-ietf-pals-ple will rely on CS-SR Policies in an SR network. I support the publication of this draft. Christian On 20.01.2025, at 18:08, Joel Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com<mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>> wrote: The tooling apparently did not send this to the lsit, so here is a copy for the folks who most need it. Yours, Joel -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy Resent-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 08:52:25 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: alias-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:alias-boun...@ietf.org> Resent-To: aretana.i...@gmail.com<mailto:aretana.i...@gmail.com>, bruno.decra...@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>, j...@joelhalpern.com<mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>, pengshup...@huawei.com<mailto:pengshup...@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 08:52:11 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org><mailto:ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org> To: draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-pol...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-pol...@ietf.org>, spring-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:spring-cha...@ietf.org> The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy has been changed to "In WG Last Call" from "WG Document" by Joel Halpern: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy/ Comment: This starts the working group last call for this draft. There was sufficient engagement and interest to justify issueing this call. Even so, we need to see support to pass the last call. Please comment, preferably with explanations, as to your support or opposition to handing this draft to our AD for processing. Silence is not consent. This call will end at the end of the day on Monday, Feb 3. _______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org> To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org<mailto:spring-le...@ietf.org>
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org
