Hi Alvaro, Thank you for your email note.
Please see replies inline with <RG>.... On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 4:22 PM Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> wrote: > [Changed the subject and the author’s alias.] > > > Rakesh: > > I’ll add this document to the queue. > <RG> Thanks! > > There was some engagement in June (around the time you first asked for the > split). I’m assuming that any common definitions or procedures are > included in this draft, right? > <RG> Yes. > If there are any pieces of the common definitions, or the SRv6 part > specifically, where you may want the WG to weigh in, now would be a good > time to ask. > <RG> Ok. There is nothing outstanding at the moment. > > > I took a very quick look and the reference > to I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment should be Normative because the PSID > is part of the specified procedures (from §4.3.1): "The Path Segment > Identifier (PSID) [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment] of the SRv6 Policy > (for the Segment List or for the Candidate-Path) is added to the Segment > List of the STAMP test packets when the egress node supports PSID > processing.” > <RG> Ok, it's used for the SR Policy direct (loss) measurement case. > > I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment is also on the WGLC queue, so we’ll > process this one after that. > <RG> Ok, thanks! Regards, Rakesh (for authors) > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > > On October 3, 2025 at 8:56:31 AM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) ( > [email protected]) wrote: > > Thanks Alvaro and WG. > > > > FYI: > > We have published following split drafts: > > 1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-srv6/ > 2. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-mpls/ > > > > We also like to request WGLC for the first draft (SRv6 PM). > > > > Thanks, > > Rakesh > > > > P.S. Good opportunity for WGLC for 00 version draft😊 > > > > > > > > *From: *Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> > *Date: *Tuesday, September 30, 2025 at 1:08 PM > *To: *[email protected] < > [email protected]> > *Cc: *spring Chairs <[email protected]>, [email protected] < > [email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: Splitting the SR STAMP document > (draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm) > > 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] >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
