Dear WG,
Thank you for all comments received during this WG last call and for the
detailed review of the document.
In term of requirement, there is support for the need to protect SR-Policy
traffic from node failure both:
a) for the protection/FRR duration (from failure detection to the start o
The SPRING WG has placed draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding in
state Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Bruno Decraene)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding/
Comment:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arc
Orange Restricted
-Original Message-
From: IETF Secretariat
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 12:23 PM
To: draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forward...@ietf.org;
spring-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Tags changed for draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding
The tags on draft
Hi Greg,
Thanks for your comments. I’ve addressed several of your comments. The latest
diffs (revision to be uploaded soon) can be found at:
https://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-saad-mpls-miad-usecases-00.txt&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tsaad-dev/d
Hi Tarek,
thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my comments. I've reviewed
the diff and got several follow-up notes:
- the new text in the Introduction section explains the ISD as being
encoded as labels:
within the label stack, e.g., encoded as labels, referred to as In
Stac
Hi Ketan,
Thanks for the replies here and the updates in the -18.
I think there are still some open topics, though; more inline.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 09:21:04PM +0530, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> Thanks for your detailed review and your comments/inputs. Please check
> inline for res
