Dear authors: We received no objections to your request. Please submit two drafts: draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-srv6 and draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-mpls
Thanks! Alvaro. On September 18, 2025 at 1:38:59 PM, Alvaro Retana ([email protected]) wrote: Dear spring WG: During the recent meeting in Madrid, the authors of draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm (Performance Measurement Using STAMP for Segment Routing Networks) requested opinions on splitting the document into two to separate the procedures that apply to SRv6 and MPLS. For more background, please see the slides from IETF 123: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/123/materials/slides-123-spring-performance-measurement-using-stamp-for-segment-routing-networks-00 During the discussion, the use of MNA was questioned, and we agreed to consult with the mpls WG. We will postpone that consultation until the WG decides whether splitting the document is ok. If anyone objects, please reply to this message by EOD on September 26, 2025. Thanks! Alvaro.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
