[spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-05

Dear authors: I just finished reading this document. Thanks for a clear and straight forward draft! I have some comments (see below). The main one is about the inclusion of hosts as defining the source routed path, without them being explicitly called out in the

[spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-06

Dear authors: I just finished reading this document. I have a couple of Major concerns (see below) which I would like to see addressed before starting the IETF Last Call on this document. Thanks!! Alvaro. Major: M1. This document mentions in several places that the segment routing

Re: [spring] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Review draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-10

Adrian: No, it isn’t your review. We’re forwarding the use case documents along with the Architecture to the IESG at the same time – we’re waiting for that last document. Thanks! Alvaro. On 8/26/17, 5:42 AM, "Adrian Farrel" wrote: As I said in my review, I think this

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-10

On 8/24/17, 4:44 PM, "Martin Vigoureux" wrote: Martin: Hi! > speaking as Shepherd. > Regarding Q1: Indeed, Section 2 is the core of the document, and in > my view the section containing what is worth standardizing. What, exactly, is this document standardizing?

[spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-10

Dear authors: I just finished reading this document. Please take a look at my comments below. The main questions/concerns that I have related to this document is not just for the authors, but for the Shepherd and the Chairs too. Q1. Why is this document on the Standards Track? From the

[spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-12

Dear authors: I just finished reviewing this document – sorry for the delay in processing. Thanks for all the work you’ve but into this document! I have some significant concerns (see below for details). In general, the document presents an incomplete view of the architecture: details about

Re: [spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-06

Hi! I looked -08 and almost everything looks good to me. The only exception is the result from the comment below: 1. All the new references should be Informative as they seem to just be examples: “Packets from a variety of protocols can be used to check continuity. These include…”. 2.

[spring] AD Review of draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-06

Dear authors: Hi! How are you? I just finished reading this document. Thank you for using a more descriptive name for this document. I have some comments (please see below) that I would like to see addressed before putting this document up for review by the IESG. I am however starting the

[spring] New spring WG Co-Chair

Dear spring WG: Due to the demands of his job John has decided to step down as spring Co-Chair, a position he has held since the formation of the WG almost 3 years ago. John has been instrumental in driving the collaboration with other groups working on spring-related extensions. Thank you!!

[spring] IETF 91 Minutes

Just posted: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-spring Thanks to Jon Mitchell for being our scribe. Alvaro. ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing

Hi! We have reached consensus on adopting this draft, and received IPR statements from all the authors. Authors: Please republish this draft as draft-ietf-spring-architecture Thanks! Alvaro. On 10/17/14, 4:30 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) aret...@cisco.commailto:aret...@cisco.com wrote

Re: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls

. On 10/17/14, 4:41 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) aret...@cisco.com wrote: On 10/7/14, 11:26 AM, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) sprev...@cisco.com wrote: IPR is in the process of being disclosed. The IPR was filed on Oct/7. For the WG reference: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2454/ Authors: We still

[spring] IETF 91 Draft Agenda (spring)

HI! I just published the draft agenda: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/agenda/agenda-91-spring As it stands, the agenda is pretty light. I’m hoping everyone is holding their requests for last.. Note that the final agenda has to be in on Nov/3. Let me know if I missed any request.

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing

, Alvaro Retana (aretana) aret...@cisco.commailto:aret...@cisco.com wrote: Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on October 8, 2014. Some additional background

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing

Reference: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2457/ On 10/17/14, 4:17 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) aret...@cisco.commailto:aret...@cisco.com wrote: Hi! So far we haven’t received any objection to the adoption of this document. Given that the authors have a recent IPR disclosure, we’re going

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls

! Alvaro. On 9/24/14, 9:07 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) aret...@cisco.commailto:aret...@cisco.com wrote: Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on October 8

Re: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls

On 10/7/14, 11:26 AM, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) sprev...@cisco.com wrote: IPR is in the process of being disclosed. The IPR was filed on Oct/7. For the WG reference: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2454/ Authors: We still haven¹t received an explicit answer from Clarence, Ahmed, Bruno,

[spring] IETF 91 Agenda Items (spring)

Hi! The preliminary agenda for Honolulu was posted yesterday (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/91/agenda.txt), and spring is scheduled to meet as follows: THURSDAY, November 13, 2014 0900-1130 Morning Session I Coral 3 RTG spring Source Packet Routing in

Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement

On 9/24/14 5:00 AM, Roberta Maglione (robmgl) rob...@cisco.commailto:rob...@cisco.com wrote: Roberta: Hi! 10. Manageability Considerations I would point to spring architecture document for manageability considerations, or remove this section. Given that this is the problem statement, we

[spring] IPR Claims related to draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement

Hi! In parallel to the WGLC for this draft, I want to formally ask the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version of the draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. So far there are no related disclosures.