Re: [spring] Introduction of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming (was Re: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative advantages of SRv6)

Hi Byron, Thank you for your feedback. It is very important for SPRING to know which documents are important for operators. This helps defining the action items for SPRING WG. draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming is a Standards Track document that focuses on technical specification for in

Re: [spring] Introduction of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming (was Re: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative advantages of SRv6)

Ron, Let’s remain focus on the one sentence that you objected to. Network programming combines segment routing functions, both simple and complex, to achieve a networking objective that goes beyond mere packet routing. Network programming combines segment routing functions to achieve a

Re: [spring] SRv6 Network Programming - ICMP Source Address Selection

Hi Erik, That behavior is good, but I believe this can be formalized as: An SRv6 SID is an IPv6 address associated with the segment. When a router needs to generate an ICMP Problem Message, it MUST follow RFC4443 section 2.2 with respect to how to select the source address. The logic with respe

Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Hi Greg, Inline. Thanks, Pablo. From: Greg Mirsky Date: Sunday, 19 January 2020 at 20:28 To: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)" Cc: "spring@ietf.org" Subject: Re: WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming Hi Pablo, thank you for sharing your opinion. I understand that you believe that dra

Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for

Hi Loa, Many thanks for your follow-up. Based on your feedback, we have updated the version in the GitHub. Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Loa Andersson Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 9:59 PM To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" , Brian E Carpenter , Ole Troan , 6man WG , SPRING WG Cc: 6man Chairs <6man

Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for

Zafar, Thanks for addressing this. However one thing remains. The text is now: "There MAY be additional segments preceding the END.OP/ END.OTP SID." I don't think there is a need for requirement language in that sentence, I read it as straightforward English: "There may be additional segments

Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for

Hi Ron, Many thanks for your detailed review and the comments. Please see [ZA] in-line. Please also refer to the latest version in the GitHub on how the comments are addressed: https://github.com/ietf-6man/srv6-oam Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Ron Bonica Date: Monday, December 23, 2019 at 2:

Re: [spring] 6man w.g. last call for

Hi Brian, Many thanks for your comments. Much appreciated. The working copy of the new version in the repository addresses your/ Loa’s comment highlighted in your email. https://github.com/ietf-6man/srv6-oam Thanks Regards … Zafar From: spring on behalf of Brian E Carpenter Organization: U

Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming

Greg, I also have reservations about putting the OAM-flag in the routing header for the following reasons: * It has to be examined, even when Segments Left is equal to 0 * It is lost with PSP * It has little to do with routing

Re: [spring] Introduction of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming (was Re: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming: Relative advantages of SRv6)

Pablo, It is difficult to see how you can add information by removing a few words. Let's begin with the text in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/3WGuQumIfcmH281nwq3s9Un6raI. If you can see other advantages of SRv6 over SR-MPLS, we can add that information to the text in my original