Re: [spring] Performance Measurement using STAMP for SR Merge (draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm + draft-gandhi-spring-enhanced-srpm)

Thanks Alvaro, WG. FYI, we have posted the merged draft in revision 10: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-10.html Welcome review comments and suggestions. Thanks, Rakesh On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 5:14 PM Alvaro Retana wrote: > Hi! > > No objections were received.

[spring] Request to review draft-gandhi-spring-enhanced-srpm

Hi WG, We have recently updated the draft [1] on "Enhanced Performance Measurement Using Simple TWAMP in Segment Routing Networks". Specifically, the SR-MPLS data plane scheme is using the recently adopted In-Stack solution by the MPLS WG. Welcome your review comments and suggestions. Thanks, R

Re: [spring] [**EXTERNAL**] The SPRING WG has placed draft-schmutzer-spring-cs-sr-policy in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

Hi WG, Chairs, I support the WG adoption of this draft. It is a well written draft that describes an important use-case of circuit-style SRTE. Thanks, Rakesh From: IETF Secretariat Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 10:04 AM To: draft-schmutzer-spring-cs-sr-pol...@ietf.org , spring-cha...@ietf.

Re: [spring] [ippm] Progressing the PBT-M “Zero Overhead property” draft

Hi all, Yes, this is a useful document for telemetry use-cases where no metadata is carried in the packet. One comment I have is that the document may add some text on ECMP considerations. Happy Holidays! Thanks, Rakesh On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 4:09 AM Tianran Zhou wrote: > Hi Gyan, > > > >

Re: [spring] WG Adoption call for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

Hi Chairs, WG, Network programming model [RFC8986] defines multiple flavors of End, End.X, and End.T SIDs. CSID draft builds on it with next and replace flavors for these SIDs. The draft reports multivendor interop was done to show co-existence of next and replace flavors. This is evidence th

Re: [spring] New Version Notification for draft-gandhi-spring-enhanced-srpm-00.txt

submitted by Rakesh Gandhi and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-gandhi-spring-enhanced-srpm Revision: 00 Title: Enhanced Performance Measurement Using Simple TWAMP in Segment Routing Networks Document date: 2021-08-24 Group: Individual Submission Pages

Re: [spring] WGLC for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment/

in the text and > compared to alternatives. > > What I see in the text is a reference to alt-marking, how are you > proposing to provide the alt pair? > > Thanks > > - Stewart > > > > On 28 Jul 2021, at 13:54, Rakesh Gandhi wrote: > > Hi Stewart, >

Re: [spring] WGLC for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment/

Hi Stewart, The SR-MPLS path segment (MPLS label) is used to count received packets on a particular path on the egress node. This allows us to measure PM packet loss on a given path. The (incoming) MPLS label as path segment has an advantage of using existing implementations for RX packet count.

Re: [spring] WGLC for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment/

Hi WG, As a co-author, I have read the latest version of the draft and I believe it is ready for publication. I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR related to this document. Thanks, Rakesh From: spring on behalf of James Guichard Date: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 11:49 AM To: spring@ietf.org

Re: [spring] WG adoption call completion for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm/

Hi Greg, Thank you for your comments. Agree, we will change the document status and start a new email thread. BTW, this was a suggestion from the WG on this as part of the adoption call. Thanks, Rakesh On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 11:46 AM wrote: > Dear WG Chairs, Martin, and All, > as I recall it

Re: [spring] WG adoption call completion for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm/

Thank you WG for your review and support for this document. Welcome your further review comments and suggestions. I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR related to this document. Thanks, Rakesh From: spring on behalf of James Guichard Date: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 11:08 AM To: spring@ietf.

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-06.txt

Thank you Greg for reviewing the document and providing your comments and suggestions. Regards, Rakesh From: gregory.mir...@ztetx.com Date: Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 11:42 AM To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) Cc: spring@ietf.org , spring-cha...@ietf.org , jguic...@futurewei.com Subject: Re

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-06.txt

the standard. Thanks, Rakesh From: gregory.mir...@ztetx.com Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 9:34 PM To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) Cc: spring@ietf.org , spring-cha...@ietf.org , jguic...@futurewei.com Subject: Re:[spring] WG Adoption Call for https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-06.txt

Hi Greg, Many thanks for your review comments. Please see replies inline with … From: gregory.mir...@ztetx.com Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 4:57 PM To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) Cc: spring@ietf.org , spring-cha...@ietf.org , jguic...@futurewei.com Subject: Re:[spring] WG Adoption Call for

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-06.txt

Thanks Gyan for your review comments. We will address the comments highlighted in blue in the next revision of the document as per reply to Greg’s email. Thanks, Rakesh From: spring on behalf of Gyan Mishra Date: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 2:37 PM To: James Guichard Cc: spring@ietf.org , s

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-06.txt

Hi Greg, Many thanks for your review comments and suggestions. Please see replies inline with … From: gregory.mir...@ztetx.com Date: Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 10:57 PM To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) Cc: jguic...@futurewei.com , spring@ietf.org , spring-cha...@ietf.org Subject: Re:[spring] WG

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-06.txt

Hi Greg, Many thanks for your review comments and suggestions. Please see replies inline with … From: spring on behalf of gregory.mir...@ztetx.com Date: Friday, June 11, 2021 at 3:19 AM To: jguic...@futurewei.com Cc: spring@ietf.org , spring-cha...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-06.txt

Hi WG, As a co-author, I support the WG adoption of this draft that uses Simple TWAMP RFC 8762 and its extensions RFC 8972, both recently published by IPPM WG. This draft further builds on the draft “Simple TWAMP Extensions for SR Networks” recently adopted by IPPM WG: draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-sr

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

nce Measurement Using Simple TWAMP > (STAMP) for Segment Routing Networks > Authors : Rakesh Gandhi > Clarence Filsfils > Daniel Voyer > Mach(Guoyi) Chen > Bart Janss

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

Hi WG, I have read the latest version of the draft and I believe it is ready for publication. Thanks, Rakesh *From: *spring on behalf of James Guichard < > james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> > *Date: *Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 2:57 PM > *To: *"spring@ietf.org" > *Cc: *"spring-cha...@ietf.org"

Re: [spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gandhi-spring-sr-enhanced-plm-04.txt

updates. Thanks, Rakesh (for the authors) On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 7:46 PM Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) wrote: > > > > > *From: *internet-dra...@ietf.org > *Date: *Tuesday, February 9, 2021 at 5:06 PM > *To: *Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) , Moses Nagarajah < > moses

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-05.txt

e 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 > Auth

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call Concluded for draft-li-spring-srv6-path-segment-07

Hi WG, I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. Thanks, Rakesh > > *From:* spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *James > Guichard > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 24, 2020 10:57 PM > *To:* spring@ietf.org > *Cc:* spring-cha...@ietf.org > *Subject:* [spring] WG Adoption Ca

[spring] FW: [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm and draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm

Thanks Greg for your comments. Please see inline, I have added some replies below inline with … From: Greg Mirsky Date: Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 12:28 PM To: Mach Chen Cc: Tianran Zhou , Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) , spring , IPPM Chairs , spring-cha...@ietf.org , Tommy Pauly , IETF IPPM

Re: [spring] [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm and draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm

Thanks Tianran for the review comments. We will address the comment in the next revision of the document. Thanks, Rakesh From: Tianran Zhou Date: Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 8:28 PM To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) , Mach Chen , Greg Mirsky Cc: spring , IPPM Chairs , spring-cha...@ietf.org

Re: [spring] [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm and draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm

Thank you Mach and Tianran for your review comments. Please see inline reply with … From: Mach Chen Date: Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 2:41 AM To: Tianran Zhou , Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) , Greg Mirsky Cc: spring , IPPM Chairs , spring-cha...@ietf.org , Tommy Pauly , IETF IPPM WG (i

Re: [spring] [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm and draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm

Hi Greg, Thank you for your review and discussions on the drafts. This will help improve the work on this important work. Please see replies inline with .. From: Greg Mirsky Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 at 5:27 PM To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) Cc: Tommy Pauly , IPPM Chairs , spring-cha

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11

Hi Jingrong, Many thanks for your review comments. We will address them in the next updates of the document. Thanks, Rakesh From: spring Date: Monday, November 2, 2020 at 2:04 AM To: James Guichard , spring@ietf.org Cc: ippm-cha...@ietf.org , spring-cha...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] WG

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11

Thanks Loa, We will add the expansion of the abbreviation in the next update. Thanks, Rakesh From: spring Date: Friday, October 30, 2020 at 12:31 AM To: Chengli (Cheng Li) , James Guichard , spring@ietf.org Cc: ippm-cha...@ietf.org , spring-cha...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption C

Re: [spring] [ippm] WG Adoption Call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-03

Thank you Greg for taking time for thoroughly reviewing the documents and providing the comments. Note that many of the comments here on STAMP draft are repeated from the previous comments on the TWAMP Light draft. Please see replies inline with . The repeated comments are tagged with to avoid

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-li-spring-srv6-path-segment

Hi WG, Support (as a co-author). Thanks, Rakesh On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 12:39 PM James Guichard < james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> wrote: > Dear WG: > > > > This message starts a 3 week WG adoption call for > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-spring-srv6-path-segment-07, ending > November 24t

Re: [spring] [ippm] Call for adoption: draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm and draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm

Hi IPPM WG, I support the WG adoption of the following two IPPM drafts (as a co-author). https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-srpm-00 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm-00 Keeping SPRING WG in the loop as well for this adoption request for the necessary proto

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-03

Hi WG, The STAMP SRPM draft defines procedures for performance delay and loss measurement in SR-MPLS and SRv6 networks. I support the WG adoption of the draft (as a co-author). Thanks, Rakesh From: spring on behalf of James Guichard Date: Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 8:52 AM To: "spring@i

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11

Hi WG, The TWAMP draft for SRPM defines procedures for performance delay and loss measurement in SR-MPLS and SRv6 networks. I support the WG adoption of the draft (as a co-author). Thanks, Rakesh From: spring on behalf of James Guichard Date: Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 8:52 AM To: "spri

[spring] Updated draft-gandhi-spring-sr-enhanced-plm-03

Hi WG, We have posted a new revision that addresses various comments received. Updates are as following: - Add TWAMP (STAMP) compatible probe message format - Use consistent terms for MPLS Timestamp Label and SRv6 Timestamp Endpoint - Add extension Label in MPLS header - Add section

Re: [spring] draft-gandhi-spring-sr-enhanced-plm / draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm

Hi Thomas, Please see replies inline with … From: Date: Monday, July 27, 2020 at 8:49 AM To: "=SMTP:rgandhi@cisco. com" Cc: Subject: draft-gandhi-spring-sr-enhanced-plm / draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm Hi Rakesh, Thanks for the presentations at spring wg. For clarification, I assume th

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-raza-spring-srv6-yang

Hi WG, I support the WG adoption of this important work for SRv6. Thanks, Rakesh > > > *From:* spring *On Behalf Of *James Guichard > *Sent:* 14 July 2020 03:22 > *To:* spring@ietf.org > *Cc:* spring-cha...@ietf.org > *Subject:* [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-raza-spring-srv6-yang > > > >

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-raza-spring-sr-policy-yang

Hi WG, Support the WG adoption of this important work for SR Policy. Thanks, Rakesh On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:38 AM James Guichard < james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> wrote: > Dear WG: > > > > This email begins a 2 week WG adoption call for > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-raza-spring-sr

[spring] Updated draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm and draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm

Hi WG, Trust everyone is doing well. Authors have updated the SR PM draft for TWAMP (RFC 5357) and moved the STAMP (now RFC 8762) extensions into a separate draft, as the SR PM extensions are for two different RFCs and protocols. This was also a feedback from the WG. Name: draft-gandhi-spring-tw

Re: [spring] Updates to draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-05.txt

/datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/slides-105-ippm-8-draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-01-00 Thanks, Rakesh > Regards, > Greg > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 10:30 PM Rakesh Gandhi > wrote: > >> Hi WG, >> We have posted a revised draft with the following updates: >

[spring] Updates to draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-05.txt

: A new version of I-D, draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-05.txt has been successfully submitted by Rakesh Gandhi and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm Revision: 05 Title: P

Re: [spring] WG adoption request for draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm {WAS: WG status - pending calls

Hi Chairs, WG, The draft was presented at the last IETF meeting and there was a good support in the session for WG adoption. We like to formally request WG adoption for this draft: draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm Thanks, Rakesh On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 11:58 AM wrote: > Hi SPRING, > > > > A nu

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

Hi Greg, Joel, FYI, END.OTP is used with TWAMP Light (RFC 5357) (and STAMP) in draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm and RFC 6374 in draft-gandhi-spring-rfc6374-srpm-udp, for performance delay measurement use-case. thanks, Rakesh On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 9:49 AM Greg Mirsky wrote: > Hi Robert, > coul

[spring] Updated draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-04.txt

dhi-spring-twamp-srpm-04.txt has been successfully submitted by Rakesh Gandhi and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm Revision: 04 Title: Performance Measurement Using TWAMP Light for Segment Routing Networks

Re: [spring] [Idr] Adoption: draft-li-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-03.txt and draft-li-sr-policy-path-segment-01.txt - 1 week extension [10/14 to 10/21/2019]

Hi WG, These drafts extend the Path Segment defined in the WG documents draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment and draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment. I agree with comments from Ketan. I support the WG adoption of these two drafts. Thanks, Rakesh From: spring on behalf of "Ketan Talaulikar (ketan

[spring] Updates to draft-gandhi-spring-rfc6374-srpm-mpls-02.txt

action. O. Editorial changes. Welcome your further review comments and suggestions. Thanks, Rakesh On 2019-10-04, 3:29 PM, "internet-dra...@ietf.org" wrote: A new version of I-D, draft-gandhi-spring-rfc6374-srpm-mpls-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Rakesh

[spring] Updated draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-02.txt

A new version of I-D, draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Rakesh Gandhi and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm Revision: 02 Title: Performance Measurement Using TWAMP

[spring] Updates to draft-gandhi-spring-ioam-sr-mpls-02.txt

, Rakesh On 2019-08-22, 10:14 PM, "internet-dra...@ietf.org" wrote: A new version of I-D, draft-gandhi-spring-ioam-sr-mpls-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Rakesh Gandhi and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-gandhi-spring-io

Re: [spring] 答复: Questions about the life span of Path Segment

ice: +972-39266302 Cell: +972-549266302 Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com From: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 3:11 PM To: Chengli (Cheng Li) ; Alexander Vainshtein ; draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment.auth...@ietf.org Cc: spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: 答复: Quest

Re: [spring] 答复: Questions about the life span of Path Segment

Hi Sasha, For PM loss measurement use-case, the same path segment ID can be used during the life span of SR Policy. Thanks, Rakesh From: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" Date: Friday, July 26, 2019 at 11:43 AM To: Alexander Vainshtein , "draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment.auth...@ietf.org" Cc: "spring

Re: [spring] [ippm] Latest Updates to SR PM Drafts

draft. Yes, this is direct loss measurement. Thanks for pointing to the draft. We will review the suggested draft and refer to that work as appropriate. Much appreciate your consideration of my comments and questions. I am looking forward to our discussion on email and in Montreal. Grea

Re: [spring] Updates to draft-gandhi-spring-ioam-sr-mpls

/Loa On 2019-05-22 06:49, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) wrote: > Hi WG, > > We have published an update to the following draft: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gandhi-spring-ioam-sr-mpls/ > > /draft-gandhi-spring-ioam-sr-mp

[spring] Updates to draft-gandhi-spring-ioam-sr-mpls

Hi WG, We have published an update to the following draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gandhi-spring-ioam-sr-mpls/ draft-gandhi-spring-ioam-sr-mpls defines how IOAM data fields are transported with SR-MPLS encapsulation. The draft has been updated as following: 1. Add different met

[spring] Latest Updates to SR PM Drafts

Hi WG, We have posted following updates to SR PM drafts to address various review comments and suggestions. - draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm

Re: [spring] [ippm] draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm - comment

Hi Rajiv, Many thanks for your comments. We will incorporate the suggestion in the next revision of the document along the lines of “synthetic probes messages congruent to the data traffic”. Thanks, Rakesh On 2019-03-28, 3:17 PM, "ippm on behalf of Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" wrote: Hi Rakes

Re: [spring] Working Group Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming

Hi Chairs, WG, I support the WG adoption of this draft. Thanks, Rakesh From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 2:50 AM To: SPRING WG Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programm...@ietf.org Subject: [spring] Workin

Re: [spring] Comments on draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm

sky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv/>. I believe that there's a good reason for us to work together on STAMP extensions that address specific SR scenarios. Regards, Greg On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 6:17 AM Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) mailto:rgan...@cisco.com>> wrote: Thank you Greg for the thorough r

Re: [spring] Comments on draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm

Thank you Greg for the thorough review of the document and your comments. Please see in line with … From: Greg Mirsky Date: Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 7:05 PM To: "draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-s...@ietf.org" , spring , IETF IPPM WG Subject: Comments on draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm Resent-F

Re: [spring] to progress draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment

Hi Greg, I am not sure if the question has been answered. I would think GAL is at the bottom of the label stack. Thanks, Rakesh On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 4:24 PM Greg Mirsky wrote: > Hi Weiqiang Cheng, > thank you for your expedient response to my questions. The document states > that one of th

Re: [spring] Working Group Adoption Call for draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment

Hi WG, Yes, support WG adoption of this draft. Thanks, Rakesh (as a co-author) On 2019-02-20, 4:01 AM, "bruno.decra...@orange.com" wrote: Hi SPRING WG, This email initiates a two week call for working group adoption for draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment. Please indic

Re: [spring] IPR Poll for draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment

Hi WG, I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. Thanks, Rakesh On 2019-02-20, 4:01 AM, "bruno.decra...@orange.com" wrote: Hi Jeff, authors, SPRING WG, In parallel to the call for adoption for draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment (1), we would like to poll for IPR.

[spring] Updates to SR PM Drafts

Hi WG, We have posted following 3 IETF drafts on SR Performance Monitoring: 1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-rfc6374-srpm-udp-00 2. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-rfc6374-srpm-mpls-00 3. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srp

Re: [spring] draft-gandhi-spring-rfc6374-srpm-mpls return path

Hi Stewart, Thanks for your comments. There is a companion draft where this TLV is defined. We can add reference/text to indicate this. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-rfc6374-srpm-udp-00#section-3.2.3.1 Hope this answers your question. Thanks, Rakesh On 2019-02-14, 9:43 AM,

Re: [spring] [ippm] Sequence Number in RFC 6374 and Synthetic Loss Measurement

Thanks Greg for your review comments. Right, the RFC 6374 DM and LM messages can carry either sequence number or timestamp but not both. There might be some cases where both are desired. The proposed sequence number TLV is optional and can be used with timestamps in DM and LM messages. We can clar

Re: [spring] [ippm] Comments on draft-gandhi-spring-sr-mpls-pm and draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm

Thanks Mach for the review comments. We will add following text in the next revision of the documents. 1. Loss Measurement The path segment identifier [I-D.spring-mpls-path-segment] [I-D.pce-sr-path-segment] of the SR Policy is required for accounting received traffic on the egress nod

Re: [spring] [ippm] New Draft draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm

omparison with your new draft? > > Regards, > Greg > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 6:57 AM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) < > rgandhi=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> Hi WG, >> >> >> >> We like to introduce following new draft that was presente

Re: [spring] New Draft draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm

Best regards, Mach From: ippm [mailto:ippm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 9:57 PM To: i...@ietf.org Subject: [ippm] New Draft draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm Hi WG, We like to introduce following new draft that was presented to SPRING WG yesterday. T

[spring] Request to review

Hi WG, This draft was presented in SPRING WG session yesterday, but we did not have sufficient time. This informational draft reviews the procedures from RFC6374 (defined for MPLS-TP), RFC7876 (UDP return path), RFC7471/RFC7810 (Extended TE Link Metric TLVs) for SR Links and SR Policies with M

[spring] Request to review

Hi WG, Following draft was presented to the SPRING WG session yesterday, but we did not have sufficient time. This draft defines IP/UDP path for sending probe query messages for delay and loss measurement that is agnostics to data plane (SR-MPLS/SRv6/IP) and does not require to bootstrap PM se

[spring] New draft on SR Performance Measurement

Hi WG, We like to bring to your attention following new IETF draft on Performance Measurement Probe messages for Segment Routing using UDP path. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm-00 We welcome your feedbacks and suggestions. Thanks, Rakesh (for authors) __