Hello SPRING folks,
Let me share an ongoing work in DMM WG that makes SRv6 to be able to provide
mobility management path on user plane:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane
So please count it when you consider rechartering. But it doesn’t mean that
SPRING WG is requir
Hi Adrian,
sure, I hope we'll soon see a fairly well defined revised Spring charter. If
"Spring policy routing" isn't sufficiently well defined for the new charter,
let's improve that (without writing a book, though..). I think success of any
WG depends on a charter (or framework) defining the
Adrian,
> and not accidentally throw the door open to everyone who can claim that
> their idea fits within the undefined term.
My personal preference is to leave the door (or even gates) wide open for
new work based on new technology as we as humans are quite bad in
predicting the future and poss
Hey Ruediger,
Our agreement may be so complete that we may get mistaken for each other in the
corridor.
Using a different name for different things is wise.
Of course, using a different name for the same thing is not so clever :-) So
digging a little to make sure we know what each group is talkin
Hi Adrian,
that's a fair proposal, I think. In addition, it may help to avoid the term
"Traffic Engineering" when rechartering Spring. Spring needs to recharter now.
I didn't see any emails on the list which advised against Spring policy routing
and the related OAM mechanisms as future work ite
There *might* be some disconnect between:
- What TEAS means by "TE"
- What TEAS is perceived to mean by "TE"
- What Spring means by "TE"
- What Spring is perceived to mean by "TE"
An option (although it would slow the discussion a bit - it might speed it in
the long term) would be to try to clarif
Hi all,
Technical discussion and technical disagreement is fine. However, during such
discussion we expect respect and courtesy to IETF colleagues at all times.
In general, I'd like to remind the following guidelines from
https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp54
1. IETF participants extend respect
The SR-TE policy work has been done for a long time in SRPING WG. In addition
though the name is a little misleading, I would like to remind you of the work
of the draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-02 which has much relation with
the draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy-05 in SPRI
Hi Ketan,
much obliged by you kind comment on BFD Directed work. The issue with IP
network convergence is the reason we've started work to enable optional
control of the reverse path of BFD session over p2p MPLS LSP.
My concern with the current text of draft-ali-spring-bfd-sr-policy is that
the con
SPRINGers,
> On Mar 19, 2018, at 3:23 PM, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I totally agree with Mach, Jeff and others that there is work to be done in
> OAM as there are more requirements to use SR for both existing and emerging
> applications.
>
> SR-TE is another important area. T
10 matches
Mail list logo
