Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy

Hi Ketan Thanks for handling the comments. Just a final comment on the security/manageability considerations that explains my reasoning. I would let you/shepherd take a call! This draft describes the SR Policy with a common informational model which has proven to be quite useful. I would like to

[spring] 答复: 答复: Comments on draft-geng-spring-sr-redundancy-protection

Hi Jeffrey, I add some explanations start with Fan3>>. BTW, from 1st to 5th May, I will be on Labor Day holiday and may not be available to respond in time. ☺ Best regards, Fan 发件人: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang [mailto:zzh...@juniper.net] 发送时间: 2021年4月30日 3:06 收件人: Yangfan (IP Standard) ; Rishabh Par

Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy

Thanks Ketan-san, yes it looks good to me. Cheers, --satoru > On Apr 29, 2021, at 23:14, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote: > >  > Hi Satoru-san, > > Thanks for your review and comment. > > I believe your point is to also cover SRv6 BSID and to that I would propose > the following text : >

[spring] I-D Action: draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-06.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking WG of the IETF. Title : Performance Measurement Using Simple TWAMP (STAMP) for Segment Routing Networks Authors

Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy

Hi WG, chairs, I support the publication of this draft. It's comprehensive and has implementations that are deployed. Thanks, Nandan On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:57 AM James Guichard < james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> wrote: > Dear WG: > > > > This email starts a 2 week Working Group Last Call for

Re: [spring] 答复: Comments on draft-geng-spring-sr-redundancy-protection

Hi Yangfan, Let me pull up a few points to the top, and respond with zzh4>. Zzh3> No. Just put the your merging segment after the replication segment. The only change to replication segment is that for the replication node, you may augment it with the semantics of adding FI/SN. No other change

Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy

This is an important draft. I have reviewed the draft and believe it is ready for publication. Many thanks for the authors and everyone helping to get that far. Richard From: spring on behalf of James Guichard Date: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 2:57 PM To: "spring@ietf.org" Cc: "spring-cha..

Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy

After having read the first few revisions awhile back, duly impressed with the scope, clarity, and utility of the document, I've read the latest draft and support this document moving to publication. On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 2:57 PM James Guichard < james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> wrote: > Dear WG

Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy

Looks good to me, thanks Ketan! Andrew From: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" Date: Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 1:57 AM To: "Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" , James Guichard , "spring@ietf.org" Cc: "spring-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: RE: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy

Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy

Looking at the latest rev of this important draft, I support the publication of it. Rgds, -- Kamran From: spring on behalf of James Guichard Date: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 2:57 PM To: spring@ietf.org Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org Subject: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-p

Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy

Hi Satoru-san, Thanks for your review and comment. I believe your point is to also cover SRv6 BSID and to that I would propose the following text : When the active candidate path has a specified BSID, the SR Policy uses that BSID if this value (label in MPLS, IPv6 address in SRv6) is available

Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy

I have read the latest version of the document and I believe it is ready for publication. The document is very detailed and useful as it allows different implementations to follow the same information model for SR Policy. Thanks, Mike. From: spring On Behalf Of James Guichard Sent: Thursday, A

Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy

Hi Dhruv, Please check inline below. From: Dhruv Dhody Sent: 29 April 2021 15:46 To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) Cc: James Guichard ; spring@ietf.org; spring-cha...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy Hi Ketan, Thanks for the discussion. Sniping to

Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy

Hi spring chairs, I think that the document is ready to move forward. Here one minor comment is bellow: Section 6.2 says on BSID as follow: When the active candidate path has a specified BSID, the SR Policy uses that BSID if this value (label in MPLS, IPv6 address in SRv6) is availabl

[spring] 答复: 答复: Comments on draft-geng-spring-sr-redundancy-protection

Hi Jeffrey, Please see inline reply starts with Fan2>>. Regards, Fan -邮件原件- 发件人: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang 发送时间: 2021年3月26日 3:19 收件人: Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong) mailto:gengxues...@huawei.com>>; spring@ietf.org; Rishabh Par

Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy

Hi Ketan, Thanks for the discussion. Sniping to - > > > If a node is identified by multiple addresses, from the point of view of > the SR policy they would be considered as different nodes, correct? > > *[KT] This relates to the computation of SR Policy which is outside the > scope of this docum

Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy

Hi Dhruv, Thanks for your detail review and great comments/feedback. Please check inline bellow. From: spring On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: 29 April 2021 11:51 To: James Guichard Cc: spring@ietf.org; spring-cha...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-polic