Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-spring-01-01: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
The document, alo
Hope all is well with all.
I'll be happy to discuss in Montreal. Between now and then i am on vscation, so
no new text from my side. Lsts better discuss first at IETF102.
G/
Gunter Van de Velde
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 8:58 PM +0200, "Susan Hares" wrote:
Stephane, Gunt
Stephane, Gunter, Ketan, Les, and Jeff:
Are you going to settle on option 2? Will we be seeing drafts with this
change in this revision?
Sue Hares
-Original Message-
From: Idr [mailto:idr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
stephane.litkow...@orange.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 6:05
Hi Bruno/Rob,
Looks good, well done!
Cheers,
Jeff
From: spring on behalf of
Date: Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 08:52
To: SPRING WG List
Subject: Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter
Hi SPRING,
Following the discussion on the mailing list, please find below the updated
tex
How about “Interworking SR with existing networks”?
Linda
From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 10:20 AM
To: Linda Dunbar ; bruno.decra...@orange.com
Cc: SPRING WG List
Subject: Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter
Linda,
“Legacy Networks” is a
Linda,
“Legacy Networks” is a derogatory term used by OF bigots to call anything,
that’s distributed ☺
There’s nothing wrong with changing and evolving existing networking to be more
programmable and flexible, changes are welcome.
I don’t think we should call existing networking – “Lega
Hi Bruno,
We have posted an IETF draft to perform MPLS Ping/Traceroute operations for
Flex Algo Prefix SID.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iqbal-spring-mpls-ping-algo-00
We'd like to request an 8 minutes presentation slot to discuss it during the WG
meeting.
Regards,
Faisal
From: spring O
Bruno,
IMHO, “Interworking between SR and Legacy Networks” is more appropriate than
“Interworking between SR and existing routing solutions” because “Interworking
SR with existing routing solutions” can imply needing changes to the “existing
routing solutions”.
Linda
From: bruno.decra...@ora
Linda,
Thanks for the feedback.
Please see inline [Bruno]
From: Linda Dunbar [mailto:linda.dun...@huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 6:18 PM
To: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; SPRING WG List
Subject: RE: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter
Bruno,
Many thanks for the updated charter. All loo
Hi Jie,
Thanks for the feedback.
Just for clarification, this work item allows for the definition of new type of
segments, especially since the SPRING WG seems the right home to discuss this.
It’s not a statement that spray, or enhanced QoS/VPN, or any specific
individual draft will be adopted
FYI we have submitted a draft in LSR WG on the IGP extensions for SR based
enhanced VPN.
This is an accompanying document of draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn-00.
Comments are welcome.
Best regards,
Jie
-Original Message-
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf
Hi Bruno,
The updated charter text looks good to me. Thanks.
For the work item “new types of segments mapping to forwarding behavior (e.g.
local ingress replication, local forwarding resources, a pre-existing
replication structure) if needed for new usages.”, the enhanced VPN drafts has
been
12 matches
Mail list logo
