Sorry for being late to close this out. While there was a few support emails from opsawg, they were overshadowed by some technical concerns from the LSR WG (who arguably would be vested in the implementation of draft). The chairs don’t feel that there is enough support to adopt this work in its current form in opsawg.
Our suggestion is to continue to work with the LSR, SPRING, and MPLS WGs to refine the approach to address the concerns that have been raised as well as include use case examples in the document to provide guidance on implementation and consumption. Finally, there may need to be some cross-WG collab and support to progress this work in opsawg. Hearing from those in the above-mentioned WGs would be helpful to know that they can help review the work when it is ready for adoption. Thanks. Joe and Tianran On Aug 13, 2020, at 08:41, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:jclarke=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Hello, WG members. During the IETF 108 virtual meeting, we had Thomas present this work. It has been reviewed by SPRING as well as on this list. The SPRING consensus was the work is better suited for opsawg. The adoption hum during the IETF 108 virtual meeting was “Piano” which was middle of the road (though given the hum rules that is somewhat inconclusive). Regardless, the chairs want to hear from the list. This document aims to modernize the IPFIX MPLS label type for segment routing in order to provide more visibility for the MPLS-SR data plane. Does opsawg want to adopt this work? This starts a two-week call for adoption. It will be concluded on August 27, 2020. Joe _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org<mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
