Hi authors,
Since Jim is now the responsible AD, the shepherd for this document has been
changed from Jim to myself.
As a result you/this document benefit/suffer from another review.
Please find below my comments/questions.
On a side note, I have two questions for you (for the shepherd writeup)
Hi Cheng,
Thanks for the updated draft.
Please see some follow-up points inline [Bruno].
Orange Restricted
From: Cheng Li mailto:c...@huawei.com>>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 12:43 PM
To: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET
mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com>>;
draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segm...@ietf.o
Hi Royi Zigler, Han Li, authors,
Regarding authors replies to the IPR polls, I could find the following ones,
but I couldn't find the ones from Royi Zigler and Han Li.
* If I missed then, could you please point them to me.
* If authors forgot to reply, could you please reply on the SPRI
Forwarding IPR declaration to the list, for reference.
From: Royi Zigler
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 7:16 AM
To: liu.ai...@zte.com.cn
Cc: james.n.guich...@futurewei.com; Greg Mirsky ;
spring-cha...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segm...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IPR declaration for dra
[+Stewart]
Thank you Stewart for your review and thank you Cheng for the updated draft.
1 comment on the new section "2.1. Equal-Cost Multipath Considerations"
> It is worthy to note that when EL labels are used in packets, the forwarding
> path of packets may be different due to load balancin
Hi Cheng,
Thanks for your reply.
Please see inline [Bruno]
>
> From: Cheng Li
> Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 12:07 PM
>
> Hi Bruno,
>
> Please see my reply inline. I provide some text to address your comments, any
> suggested text is appreciated
>
> Thanks,
> Cheng
>
>
Orange Restricted
> --
Yes you are correct.
Thanks,
--Bruno
Orange Restricted
-Original Message-
From: Cheng Li
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 5:52 PM
To: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET
Cc: Xipengxiao ; spring@ietf.org; Stewart Bryant
Subject: RE: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-15.txt
I
Hi Joel, WG
> From: spring On Behalf Of Joel Halpern
>
> 1) This email initiates an IPR call for the subject document. All authors and
> contributors, please confirm explicitly to the list that all known relevent
> IPR has been disclosed. Or tell us if that is not the case.
I'm not aware of n
Dear Yingzhen,
At your request, I have quickly parsed the draft.
It's not completely clear to me how the solution works given that the
terminology used is a bit loose.
2 questions on the terminology:
1) "protection" vs "restoration". The document largely uses the term
"protection", in particu
Hi Yingzhen,
Thank you for your answers and clarification. That really helps.
Please see inline [Bruno]
From: Yingzhen Qu
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 3:42 AM
To: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET
Cc: Ketan Talaulikar ; RTGWG ;
draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection
; rtgwg-chairs
; s
Hi Weiqiang,
Thanks for the additional replies.
Please see inline [Bruno2]
From: Weiqiang Cheng
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 6:59 AM
To: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET ; yingzhen.ietf
Cc: ketant.ietf ; rtgwg ;
draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection
; rtgwg-chairs
; spring-chairs
Hi,
Spring draft has expired and there is no plan for adoption.
It’s related to a 6MAN draft which has expired:
draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion.
If I recall correctly, last time it has been presented in 6MAN was during IETF
106. Minutes @
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/ma
Hi Susan,
Please see inline [Bruno]
From: Susan Hares
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2024 3:47 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org; idr-cha...@ietf.org; Dongjie (Jimmy)
; i...@ietf.org
Subject: draft-ietf-idr-cpr-02
CAUTION : This email originated outside the company. Do not click on an
Dear authors and contributors:
Are you aware of any IPR that applies to this draft?
If so, has it been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see
BCP78 and BCP79 for more details)? For any undisclosed IPR, please
provide any additional information you think appropriate.
If you are listed
Dear WG:
This message starts a three-week adoption call for
draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking, ending on August/1rst.
(The third week is to account for the busy IETF week.)
>From the Abstract:
This document describes SRv6 and MPLS/SR-MPLS interworking and co- existence
procedures.
P
Dear authors,
Thank you for your draft.
I've done a review of your document. (with multiple interruptions, hopefully
the comments will be consistent...)
Please find below some comments.
Abstract
" This document describes SRv6 and MPLS/SR-MPLS interworking and co-
existence procedures. »
Authors,
You may have missed the comment from Robert (alternatively I may have missed
your answer).
Probably the adoption call would be a good time to answer the questions from
the WG.
Could you please have a look at the comment and provide an answer?
Thanks,
--Bruno
From: spring On Behalf
Hi authors, WG.
As you expressed beliefs that the document is ready for WGLC and asked for
WGLC, I've been suggested to look again at this draft.
Please find below some initial comments. (more are expected in subsequent
iterations)
1. Overall document
§1 "Introduction" is clear. Thank you.
[speaking as individual contributor]
Hi authors,
I've quickly read your draft. In the interest of saving meeting time, please
find below two comments.
1) You are adding the packet sequence number in the IPv6 destination address.
As consequence, in case of load balancing, packets from the same
Hi Bala'zs,
Thanks for your answer.
Eventually, point 1 could be added in the spring draft as this Detnet
restriction may not be obvious for SPRING reviewers.
Thanks & cheers,
--Bruno
-Original Message-
From: Balázs Varga A
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 8:48 PM
To: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/
Joel, authors,
[speaking as individual contributor for this whole email thread]
> From: Joel Halpern
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 7:19 PM
>
> As I understand it, as a participant, regarding your point 1, detnet
> prohibits ECMP within detnet domains. (If you mean some other form of load
Hi Bala'zs,
Thanks for your answer.
Makes sense. Good point that for non "strict' detnet uses cases, the PREOF-SID
may be hidden in the SRH for most of the way. (at the expense of requiring an
SRH even if uSID/NEXT may possibly have avoided it given PREOF-SID requirement
for "only" 48 bits of A
Cheng, SPRING WG
> From: Cheng Li
> Sent: Monday, September 2, 2024 5:46 PM
> To: spring@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segm...@ietf.org
> Subject: [spring] Request for MORE reviews of
> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment-09
>
>
> Hi SPRING,
>
> The SR-MPLS Path Segment draft has be
Thank you Cheng.
-10 addresses my point.
Regards,
--Bruno
-Original Message-
From: Cheng Li
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 7:15 PM
To: spring@ietf.org; DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET ;
zehua...@foxmail.com; liu.ya...@zte.com.cn; Joel Halpern
Subject: RE: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spr
Bruno Decraene has requested publication of
draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-15 as Proposed Standard on behalf of
the SPRING working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-progra
Bruno Decraene has requested publication of draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-09 as
Proposed Standard on behalf of the SPRING working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr/
___
spring ma
26 matches
Mail list logo
