Agree Jeff.
Thank you.
SY,Boris
On Friday, April 30, 2021, 11:46:36 PM GMT+3, Jeff Tantsura
wrote:
Boris/Ketan,
Traditionally, we have been using Wiki to track implementations status, let’s
take the same approach here?
Thanks and have a great weekend
Cheers,JeffOn Apr 27, 2021, 10:4
Boris/Ketan,
Traditionally, we have been using Wiki to track implementations status, let’s
take the same approach here?
Thanks and have a great weekend
Cheers,
Jeff
On Apr 27, 2021, 10:48 PM -0700, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
, wrote:
> Hi Boris,
>
> Thanks for your review and feedback.
>
> Did
Hi Joel,
Authors, can you clarify whether it would be accurate for Jim to report "there
have been implementations for many years, and multiple interoperability tests" ?
KT> Yes
Thanks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: Joel M. Halpern
Sent: 30 April 2021 22:27
To: Ketan Talaulikar (keta
It would seem very strange to add an implementation section at WGLC,
since by IETF policy they are removed before RFC publication. (For
context, the driving reason for removal is that they inherently become
obsolete.)
It is reasonable to include comments on implementation in the shepherd
wri
I have finished reading the draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-09. I
think the draft is written very clear.
I support the WGLC.
Best Regards,
Linda Dunbar
On Thursday, April 15, 2021, 9:57:11 PM GMT+3, James Guichard
mailto:james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>> wrote:
Dear WG:
T
Hi Ketan,
Surely. Regarding EANTC, yes, I read those reports but there are no many such
implementation details.
Thx.
SY,Boris
On Friday, April 30, 2021, 7:12:31 PM GMT+3, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
wrote:
#yiv3975518635 #yiv3975518635 -- _filtered {} _filtered {} _filtered {}
_filtere
Hi Boris,
I will leave it the chair/shepherd guidance on this one.
EANTC has been running multi-vendor interop for Segment Routing that covers
this document along with signalling protocols like PCEP and BGP-SRTE every year
since at least 2016. It includes various controller and router products.
Hi Ketan,
Yes, I meant an implementation status section in the draft.
The either one way, which will be easier to accomplish. We need to fix such
status somewhere, IMO.
Thank you.
SY,Boris
On Wednesday, April 28, 2021, 8:48:06 AM GMT+3, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
wrote:
Hi Boris,
Please ignore this incomplete message. Sent by accident.
From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 11:04 AM
To: Yangfan (IP Standard) ; Rishabh Parekh
Cc: Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong) ; Rishabh Parekh
(riparekh) ; Arvind Venkateswaran (arvvenka)
; spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [s
Hi Fan,
Enjoy your holidays and we can continue the discussion after that, but let me
reply here while it is still fresh in my head.
Please see zzh5> below.
From: Yangfan (IP Standard)
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 11:16 PM
To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang ; Rishabh Parekh
Cc: Gengxuesong (Geng
Hi All,
This version includes the updates for the WGLC comments as discussed on the
list.
Thanks,
Ketan (on behalf of co-authors)
-Original Message-
From: spring On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org
Sent: 30 April 2021 19:25
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: [spr
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 : Segment Routing Policy Architecture
Authors : Clarence Filsfils
I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR applicable to
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy.
Thanks,
Siva
*From:* spring *On Behalf Of *James Guichard
*Sent:* 11 April 2021 16:04
*To:* SPRING WG
*Cc:* spring-cha...@ietf.org
*Subject:* [spring] IPR Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing
Hi Dhruv,
Just a follow-up as I was addressing Gyan’s comments. The additional
considerations and details that you were looking for – was it for
implementation and deployment aspects (rather than specifically security &
manageability)?
We have a separate draft that carries some details which c
Hi Gyan,
Thanks for your review and the detailed feedback/comments. Will address your
comments in the upcoming updated and let me try to summarize the
changes/responses below:
1. The SR Policy computation can use/leverage the Flex-Algo SIDs when they
meets the requirements. There used to b
Hi authors,
As a friendly remainder, during WG LC some questions and comments have been
raised.
Please resolve the point raised and update the draft as needed.
Thanks,
Bruno
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 7:3
Dear Authors
As Flex Algo specification must be used over SR data plane architecture I
think a section should be added related to flex Algo interaction with SR
policy. It may have been mentioned but I didn’t notice it.
Also in section 9.3 so as I understand we are using the backup path for FRR
pa
Hi Dhruv,
Please check inline below.
From: Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 30 April 2021 11:43
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 handling the comments. Just
Dear Authors
In the Abstract and Introduction you could say that the intermediate node
control plane state maintenance is eliminated as now the same functionality
of a label binding is now provided with IGP SR extension per SR
architecture.
Kind Regards
Gyan
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 3:06 AM Gya
Dear WG Authors
This draft is very well written and I support publication.
Few minor comments
Abstract and Introduction
I would reword “ Intermediate per-flow states are eliminated thanks to
source routing.”
I would reword saying the header of a packet is steered into an SR policy
as it’s the
20 matches
Mail list logo
