Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn

Hi, I support the WG adoption of this draft. Thanks. s. > On Jan 27, 2021, at 12:46 PM, James Guichard > wrote: > > Dear WG: > > This message starts a 2 week WG adoption call for > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn/ > ending February 10th2021. > >

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

Hi, I support the adoption of draft-li-spring-srv6-path-segment as it describes a useful feature (identifying an SR path through a segment identifier) which is already available in implementations. Thanks. s. > On Nov 3, 2020, at 6:39 PM, James Guichard > wrote: > > Dear WG: > > This

Re: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming - 2 week Early Allocation Call

support. s. > On Dec 19, 2019, at 5:53 PM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > Hi SPRING WG, > > This begins a 2 week Early Allocation call for a “Ethernet” value from the > "Protocol Numbers" registry. > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming-07#section-9.1

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call: draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming

support. Thanks. s. > On Jun 27, 2019, at 8:13 AM, Rob Shakir > wrote: > > Hi SPRING WG, > > This email initiates a two week working group adoption call for > draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming. This follows the discussion that > we had in the last few IETF meetings, and

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call: draft-guichard-spring-nsh-sr

support. Thanks. s. > On Jun 27, 2019, at 8:13 AM, Rob Shakir > wrote: > > Hi SPRING WG, > > This email initiates a two week working group adoption call for > draft-guichard-spring-nsh-sr. This follows the discussion that we had in the > last few IETF meetings, and particularly the

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

Hi, I support the working group adoption of this document. Thanks. s. > On Mar 13, 2019, at 7:49 PM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > Hi SPRING WG, > > This email initiates a three week call for working group adoption for > draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming. (Three weeks

Re: [spring] Last Call: (Segment Routing with MPLS data plane) to Proposed Standard

Fully agree. Thanks. s. On Tue, Feb 26, 2019, 22:20 Adrian Farrel wrote: > This draft has been around the block a bit, but certainly needs to progress > because a lot of other things are dependent on it. > > Fortunately after plenty of review and updates (thanks to the authors), I > think

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

I support the adoption of this draft as WG item. Thanks. s. > On Feb 20, 2019, at 10:03 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 indicate your support,

Re: [spring] Question: Inconsistency of SR policy structure

> On Oct 19, 2018, at 9:00 AM, Chengli (IP Technology Research) > wrote: > > Hi Stefano, > > Please see line. > > Cheng > > > -----Original Message- > From: stefano previdi [mailto:stef...@previdi.net] > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 2:49 P

Re: [spring] Question: Inconsistency of SR policy structure

Hi Cheng, to my understanding the definition of an SR Policy (draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy) is correct. An SR Policy may include different paths and each of these paths may be advertised in a different way (BGP, PCEP, static, ...). BGP extensions described in

Re: [spring] IPR Poll for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls

I'm not aware of any undisclosed IPR. Thanks. s. On Thu, May 24, 2018, 7:28 PM wrote: > Hi SPRING WG, > > > > In parallel to the WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls, we > would like to poll for IPR. > > > > If you are aware of IPR that applies to >

Re: [spring] Working Group Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy

as a non-co-author, I support the adoption of this draft. s. > On May 16, 2018, at 5:20 PM, Rob Shakir wrote: > > Hi SPRING WG, > > This email initiates a two week call for working group adoption for > draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy. Please indicate your

Re: [spring] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: SPRING - rechartering discussion

SPRINGers, > On Mar 19, 2018, at 3:23 PM, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: > > Hi all, > > I totally agree with Mach, Jeff and others that there is work to be done in > OAM as there are more requirements to use SR for both existing and emerging > applications. > > SR-TE is

Re: [spring] [mpls] The MPLS WG has placed draft-farrel-mpls-sfc in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Francois, Xiaohu, I fully agree with you. s. > On Mar 8, 2018, at 11:20 AM, Francois Clad (fclad) wrote: > > Hi Xiaohu, all, > > I agree with the point raised by Xiaohu. The draft-farrel-mpls-sfc is copying > ideas described in draft-xu-mpls-service-chaining. Please note

Re: [spring] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-11

Hi Brian, thanks for the comments. See answers below. > On Nov 11, 2017, at 12:25 AM, Brian Carpenter > wrote: > > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review result: Ready > > Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-11 > > I am the assigned

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

> On Nov 1, 2017, at 8:55 PM, Alvaro Retana wrote: > > On October 28, 2017 at 10:51:52 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > (ginsb...@cisco.com ) wrote: > Les: > > Hi! > >> Apologies for the long delay in responding. The transference of the pen from >> Stefano resulted in a

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

Hi Alvaro, Martin, Bruno, Sorry for the long delay. The authors are working on the different reviews and will address all comments before next meeting. Thanks. s. On October 10, 2017 11:35:24 PM GMT+02:00, Alvaro Retana wrote: >Dear authors: > > > >Hi! > > >

Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution

I strongly support the publication of this draft. I’m not aware of any IPR related to the mechanisms described in the draft. s. > On Jun 29, 2017, at 3:28 PM, Martin Vigoureux > wrote: > > Hello Working Group, > > This email starts a Working Group Last Call on

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-08.txt

gt; directories. > This draft is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking of the > IETF. > >Title : Segment Routing interworking with LDP >Authors : Clarence Filsfils > Stefano Previdi >

Re: [spring] [OSPF] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE

> On Jun 12, 2017, at 4:05 PM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > Hi Stefano, > >> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com] > Sent: >> Monday, June 12, 2017 3:52 PM >> >> Hi Rob, >> >> sorry for the mess. I’m afraid,

Re: [spring] [OSPF] OSPFv2 Segment Routing Extensions ERO Extensions (would also effect OSPFv3 and IS-IS) - REPLY TO THIS ONE

Hi Rob, sorry for the mess. I’m afraid, the problem has been poorly described. We’re obviously NOT questioning the use of the Binding SID and we’re NOT proposing the removal of it. What we’re talking about is the set of RSVP-like/ERO-like subTLVs that have been defined in both isis and ospf

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-11.txt

ing of the > IETF. > >Title : Resiliency use cases in SPRING networks >Authors : Clarence Filsfils > Stefano Previdi > Bruno Decraene > Rob Shakir > Filename: dra

Re: [spring] A belated comment on end-to-end path protection in draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases

intentions? > > Regards, > Sasha > > Office: +972-39266302 > Cell: +972-549266302 > Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com > > > -Original Message- > From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:

Re: [spring] A belated comment on end-to-end path protection in draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases

> On May 11, 2017, at 12:04 PM, Alexander Vainshtein > wrote: > > Hi all, > I have a belated (but hopefully late is still better than never) comment on > path protection as defined in Section 2 of the draft. > > This second para in this section says: >A

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-10.txt

rce Packet Routing in Networking of the > IETF. > >Title : Resiliency use cases in SPRING networks >Authors : Clarence Filsfils > Stefano Previdi > Bruno Decraene > Rob Shakir >

Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-10

> On May 5, 2017, at 11:52 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > > Alternatively maybe it would be better to have a single use case: Operators > that wish to deploy SR without an MPLS control plane, I’d agree with the above. Let’s simplify the document with, at the end, what

Re: [spring] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08

sed concurrently or as a primary and backup > path where the secondary path is used when the primary failed." > But the "concurrently" word is IMO ambiguous as it could mean 1+1 scheme or > ECMP like behavior. > > Brgds, > > > -Original Message- > Fr

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-07.txt

ting in Networking of the > IETF. > >Title : Segment Routing interworking with LDP >Authors : Clarence Filsfils > Stefano Previdi > Ahmed Bashandy > Bruno Decraene >

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-09.txt

the Source Packet Routing in Networking of the > IETF. > >Title : Resiliency use cases in SPRING networks >Authors : Clarence Filsfils > Stefano Previdi > Bruno Decraene >

Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08

> On May 1, 2017, at 10:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: > > Stefano, > > I won't argue further about the general issues, they are really > between you and the ADs. About this: > > ... >>> Minor issue: >>> >>> >>> The text of section 3 doesn't

Re: [spring] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08

> On May 1, 2017, at 4:03 AM, Brian Carpenter > wrote: > > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review result: Ready with Issues > > Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08 > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General

Re: [spring] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08

Hi Lou, thanks for the comment. I integrated them in the new version I’ll submit asap. Thanks. s. > On Apr 24, 2017, at 6:15 PM, Lou Berger wrote: > > Hello, > > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. > The Routing Directorate seeks to

Re: [spring] New Version Notification for draft-gulkohegde-routing-planes-using-sr-00.txt

Hi Pushpasis, I agree. The problem/use-case is already described in RFC7855, the required protocol extensions are already documented in ospf, isis and bgp drafts, we already have multiple implementations, and deployments have been done. s. > On Mar 14, 2017, at 8:20 AM, Pushpasis Sarkar

Re: [spring] [Idr] IDR WG 2 week WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe - (2/15/2017 to 3/1/2017)

John, Bruno, sorry for having missed that. I’ll resubmit right now. I integrated all comments. Regarding the missing "section 3.1" (referring to the isis draft), I replaced text with the reference to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext which defines the bgp-ls tlv for advertising the

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-08.txt

TF. > >Title : Segment Routing with MPLS data plane >Authors : Clarence Filsfils > Stefano Previdi > Ahmed Bashandy > Bruno Decraene > Stephan

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-04.txt

the Source Packet Routing in Networking of the > IETF. > >Title : BGP-Prefix Segment in large-scale data centers >Authors : Clarence Filsfils > Stefano Previdi > Jon Mitchell &g

Re: [spring] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-04

Hi Jon, many thanks for your review. Some comments inline. where you don’t see any answer to your comments is because I applied them to the draft. > On Mar 7, 2017, at 7:35 PM, Jonathan Hardwick > wrote: > > Hello > > I have been selected to do a routing

Re: [spring] [RTG-DIR] Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-03

l Nits are your > choice to adopt/not-adopt. IETF LC and IESG review will provide you lots of > feedback on editorial nits. yup, I applied all of them. Thanks. s. > > > Sue > > -Original Message- > From: rtg-dir [mailto:rtg-dir-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-03.txt

the Source Packet Routing in Networking of the > IETF. > >Title : BGP-Prefix Segment in large-scale data centers >Authors : Clarence Filsfils > Stefano Previdi > Jon Mitchell &g

Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-02

> On Mar 1, 2017, at 7:27 PM, Anoop Ghanwani <an...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) > <sprev...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 1, 2017, at 5:48 PM, Anoop Ghanwani <an...@alumni.duke.edu>

Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-02

> On Feb 28, 2017, at 8:29 PM, Anoop Ghanwani wrote: > > I support publication of the document as an informational RFC. > > Below are my comments. > > Thanks, > Anoop > > == > > - pg 5, line 1 > What is the criteria that allow sharing the AS number? Is there a >

Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-02

Hi Bruno, thanks for the review. I integrated all the comments in the new version I’m going to submit very soon. One last comment here below: > On Feb 22, 2017, at 2:00 PM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > 2) For the document write up, are there any known deployment of >

Re: [spring] A question regarding mode of SR/LDP interop

972-39266302 > Cell: +972-549266302 > Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com > > > -Original Message- > From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 4:17 PM > To: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@ecit

Re: [spring] A question regarding mode of SR/LDP interop

> On Feb 23, 2017, at 2:45 PM, Alexander Vainshtein > wrote: > > Hi all, > I would like to point to what looks to me as inconsistency between the > current (-05) version of the SR YANG Data Model draft and the latest (-06) > version of the Segment Routing

Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-02

as co-author, I support the publication of this draft. Thanks. s. > On Feb 21, 2017, at 10:50 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > Hello Working Group, > > This email starts a 2-week Working Group Last Call on > draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-02 [1]. > > Please read the

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-04.txt

rce Packet Routing in Networking of the > IETF. > >Title : Segment Routing Centralized BGP Egress Peer > Engineering >Authors : Clarence Filsfils > Stefano Previdi > Ebben Aries >

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-11.txt

s. > This draft is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking of the > IETF. > >Title : Segment Routing Architecture >Authors : Clarence Filsfils > Stefano Previdi > Bruno Decraene >

Re: [spring] IDR WG 2 week WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe - (2/15/2017 to 3/1/2017)

> On Feb 16, 2017, at 12:34 AM, Susan Hares wrote: > > This begins a 2 week IDR WG last call on > draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe from (2/15 to 3/1/2017)There are > two implementations describe on the wiki at: >

Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe

support as co-author. s. > On Feb 13, 2017, at 11:08 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > Hello Working Group, > > This email starts a 2-week Working Group Last Call on > draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-03 [1]. > > Please read the document if you haven't read the most

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-06.txt

ting in Networking of the > IETF. > >Title : Segment Routing interworking with LDP >Authors : Clarence Filsfils > Stefano Previdi > Ahmed Bashandy > Bruno Decraene >

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-07.txt

ting in Networking of the > IETF. > >Title : Segment Routing with MPLS data plane >Authors : Clarence Filsfils > Stefano Previdi > Ahmed Bashandy > Bruno Decraene >

Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-06

Stewart, I applied some of your comments in the new submitted version of the draft. Some other comments below. > On Feb 2, 2017, at 1:15 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > > Here are a number of WGLC comments on this document. > > - Stewart > > Segment

Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-05

I support as co-author. s. > On Feb 6, 2017, at 2:20 PM, Martin Vigoureux > wrote: > > Hello Working Group, > > This email starts a 2-week Working Group Last Call on > draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-05 [1]. > > ¤ Please read the document if you

Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-06

Hi Uma, We'll add a couple of statements on that matter. Thanks. s. -Original Message- From: Uma Chunduri [uma.chund...@huawei.com] Received: Monday, 30 Jan 2017, 6:40PM To: Stewart Bryant [stewart.bry...@gmail.com]; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [sprev...@cisco.com]; Martin Horneffer [m

Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-06

I agree with Martin, I think we have discussed this at length and I wouldn't re-spin the debate (and come to the same conclusion again and again). The manageability section of the architecture draft mention that a node may want to signal its stack capabilities and we have igp extensions for

Re: [spring] WG LC for draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases

I support this draft. s. > On Dec 6, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Martin Vigoureux > wrote: > > Hello WG, > > this e-mail initiates a two-week WG LC for draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases > [1]. > > All the authors have already replied to the IPR poll. > There is no known

Re: [spring] WG LC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing

as an author, I support this draft. s. > On Dec 6, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Martin Vigoureux > wrote: > > WG, > > this is a reminder, please express your opinion regarding this WG LC. > > Thank you > > -m > > Le 28/11/2016 à 10:37, Martin Vigoureux a écrit : >> Hello

Re: [spring] Conflict resolution - a plea for simplicity

> On Dec 5, 2016, at 12:19 AM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bry...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 04/12/2016 15:53, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote: >> Stewart, >> >> thanks for the feedback. >> >> Just to give you an update, the work currently

Re: [spring] Conflict resolution - a plea for simplicity

Stewart, thanks for the feedback. Just to give you an update, the work currently done in the context of the conflict-resolution draft aimed to, indeed, limit/reduce the impact of a misconfiguration in presence of conflicting prefix/sid mappings. It is based on the concept that there’s no such

Re: [spring] WG LC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing

On Nov 30, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bry...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 30/11/2016 10:38, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote: >>> On Nov 29, 2016, at 8:21 PM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bry...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> The following a

Re: [spring] WG LC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing

> On Nov 29, 2016, at 8:21 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > > The following are my comments on this text in response to the WGLC. > A lot of comments are embedded in the draft text below. > > However I have some major overarching comments. Although this is called > an

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-filsfils-spring-large-scale-interconnect-04.txt

rce Packet Routing in Networking of the > IETF. > >Title : Interconnecting Millions Of Endpoints With Segment > Routing >Authors : Clarence Filsfils > Dennis Cai > Stefano Previdi &g

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-filsfils-spring-sr-recursing-info-03.txt

work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking of the > IETF. > >Title : Segment Routing Recursive Information >Authors : Clarence Filsfils > Stefano Previdi > Peter Psenak >

Re: [spring] Issue with path protection for SR-TE LSPs

liency-use-ca...@ietf.org; Marina Fizgeer; Rotem Cohen; > DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) > Subject: RE: [spring] Issue with path protection for SR-TE LSPs > > Stephane, > Lots of thanks for an important clarification. > > But don’t you think that in addition to

Re: [spring] SPRING WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases

> On Sep 26, 2016, at 10:25 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > Hi Authors, > >> From: John G. Scudder [mailto:j...@juniper.net] > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, >> 2016 4:44 PM >> >> Dear SPRING WG (and I've taken the liberty of cc'ing RTGWG), >> >> The authors have indicated that

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-05.txt

, necessary mechanisms SHOULD be provided ... to control when a repair > path ..." > "When" is important, but "how" is also important, especially for managed > protection. Would be good to add this. agreed. I’ll submit the new version with your comments a

Re: [spring] meaning of "Strict Shortest Path" algorithm in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09

ander.vainsht...@ecitele.com > > From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 3:09 PM > To: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) <sprev...@cisco.com> > Cc: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>; spring@ietf.org; > Ch

Re: [spring] meaning of "Strict Shortest Path" algorithm in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09

Cell: +972-549266302 > Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com > > -Original Message----- > From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Previdi > (sprevidi) > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 12:43 PM > To: Chris Bowers <cbow...@juniper.

Re: [spring] meaning of "Strict Shortest Path" algorithm in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09

> On Sep 14, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Chris Bowers wrote: > > SPRING WG, > > The current text in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09 regarding the > "Strict Shortest Path" algorithm reads as follows. > >o "Strict Shortest Path": This algorithm mandates that the packet

Re: [spring] clarification of text in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09

Hi Chris, > On Sep 12, 2016, at 4:04 PM, Chris Bowers wrote: > > As far as I can tell, this request for clarification of the text in > draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09 has not been addressed. > > Thanks, > Chris > > -Original Message- > From: spring

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-02.txt

TF. > >Title : Segment Routing Centralized BGP Peer Engineering >Authors : Clarence Filsfils > Stefano Previdi > Ebben Aries > Daniel Ginsburg > Dmitry

Re: [spring] REMINDER : Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases

Hi Stephane, I’ll take care of this asap. Sorry for the delay. s. > On Sep 7, 2016, at 1:05 PM, stephane.litkow...@orange.com wrote: > > Hi Authors, > > Could you please check the comment’s below so we can continue to progress the > document ? > > Thanks ! > > From: spring

Re: [spring] 答复: Re: WG adoption requested for draft-filsfils-spring-sr-recursing-info

> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:41 AM, peng.sha...@zte.com.cn wrote: > > Stefano, > > see inline with [Deccan] > > Thanks > Deccan > > > > "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprev...@cisco.com> > 2016-08-23 23:22 > > 收件人 > "peng.

Re: [spring] WG adoption requested for draft-filsfils-spring-sr-recursing-info

timization. Without the local label, you will share the same sid among multiple prefixes. > even the first case in this draft is actually not SID sharing, otherwise it > will be cared by draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution. No, it is not a conflict. Having a dedicated srri repositor

Re: [spring] WG adoption requested for draft‐filsfils‐spring‐large-scale-interconnect

As co-author, I support the adoption of this document to WG item. I’m not aware of any IPR that hasn’t been disclosed already. s. > On Jul 24, 2016, at 2:55 PM, John G. Scudder wrote: > > Dear WG, > > As we discussed at our meeting, working group adoption has been

Re: [spring] IPR for draft‐ietf-spring-segment‐routing-mpls prior to WGLC

I’m not aware of any IPR that hasn’t been disclosed already. s. > On Jul 24, 2016, at 2:52 PM, John G.Scudder wrote: > > Dear Authors: > > As we discussed at the SPRING meeting, working group last call has been > requested for draft‐ietf-spring-segment‐routing-mpls. Before

Re: [spring] IPR for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc prior to WGLC

I’m not aware of any IPR that hasn’t been disclosed already. s. > On Jul 24, 2016, at 2:50 PM, John G.Scudder wrote: > > Dear Authors: > > As we discussed at the SPRING meeting, working group last call has been > requested for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc. Before

Re: [spring] IPR for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing prior to (additional) WGLC

I’m not aware of any IPR that hasn’t been disclosed already. s. > On Jul 24, 2016, at 2:49 PM, John G.Scudder wrote: > > Dear Authors: > > As we discussed at the SPRING meeting, a second working group last call has > been requested for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing.

Re: [spring] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-05.txt

fully submitted by Stefano Previdi and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls > Revision: 05 > Title:Segment Routing with MPLS data plane > Document date:2016-07-06 > Group:spr

Re: [spring] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09.txt

Hi, Security and Manageability sections have been added. Thanks. s. > On Jul 4, 2016, at 2:30 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09.txt > has been successfully submitted by Stefano Previdi and posted to the &g

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-04.txt

the Source Packet Routing in Networking of the > IETF. > >Title : Segment Routing interworking with LDP >Authors : Clarence Filsfils > Stefano Previdi > Ahmed Bashandy >

Re: [spring] [nvo3] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header

an-...@tools.ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; 6man WG; > n...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-hea...@tools.ietf.org; Stefano > Previdi (sprevidi) > Subject: Re: [nvo3] [spring] L4 Checksum and > draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header > > I agree with Robert and Jes

Re: [spring] RFC 7855 on Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Problem Statement and Requirements

SPRING’ers, This is our first rfc. Now that we have a problem statement and requirements documents, we know what we have to do ;-) Thanks to everyone for the support. Thanks. s. > On May 26, 2016, at 1:48 AM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > A new Request for Comments is now

Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header

the draft is about IPv6 extension header and more precisely a new type of the routing extension header defined in rfc2460. That’s the context. s. > > Tom > >> >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisc

Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header

. > > So VXLAN is off the table? it’s all about IP, not layer-2. s. > It would be worthwhile to clarify this in the draft. If you have a specific > encapsulation in mind, it would be great if the draft would specify it. > > Thanks, > Tal. > > >> -Origina

Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header

es the SR tunnel the outer encapsulation (including the SRH) is removed and the packet continues its journey like nothing happened. s. > > Thanks, > Tal. > >> -Original Message- >> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com] >> Sent:

Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header

> On May 16, 2016, at 8:21 AM, Tal Mizrahi wrote: > > Hi Ole, > > Thanks for the prompt response. > > It would be helpful if the authors added a comment about the L4 Checksum to > the current draft, even though this functionality was defined in RFC 2460. please read

Re: [spring] L4 Checksum and draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header

> On May 15, 2016, at 8:06 PM, otr...@employees.org wrote: > > Tal, > >> [Apologies if this issue has been discussed before.] >> >> According to draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header, an ‘SR Segment Endpoint >> Node’ updates the Destination IP address. >> Therefore, it must also update the

[spring] updated drafts

I just submitted: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-02 and draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-08 hopefully integrating the remaining comments from Sasha and Eric. Thanks. s. ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org

Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call

> On May 6, 2016, at 10:16 PM, Uma Chunduri wrote: > > Les, > > 2 quick things. > > 1. > >[Les:] There are two legitimate use cases for SRMS: >>1)To advertise SIDs for non-SR > capable nodes >

Re: [spring] Issue re PHP specification in SPRING drafts

Eric, > On Feb 26, 2016, at 2:44 PM, Eric C Rosen wrote: > > There seems to be some inconsistency in the various documents about the way > that penultimate hop popping is handled. > > When advertising a prefix-SID via OSPF, the OSPF Segment Routing extensions > associate

Re: [spring] Issue re PHP specification in SPRING drafts

Hi Eric, sorry, I missed that one and will look into this asap. s. > On May 9, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Eric C Rosen wrote: > > A few months back I pointed out a couple of small issues that I think need to > be addressed in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing. I still think they

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-01.txt

final destination > > > > > Rabah Guedrez > Thésard > ORANGE/IMT/OLN/WTC/IEE/ITEQ > > Phone: +33 2 96 07 18 56 > rabah.gued...@orange.com > > > De : Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com] > Envoyé : jeudi 28 avril 2016 13:46 >

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-01.txt

[rabah.gued...@orange.com] Received: Thursday, 28 Apr 2016, 12:58 To: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [sprev...@cisco.com] CC: spring@ietf.org [spring@ietf.org]; i...@ietf.org [i...@ietf.org] Subject: RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-01.txt You have said in a previous response

[spring] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-filsfils-spring-sr-recursing-info-02.txt

o: Clarence Filsfils <cfils...@cisco.com>, Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com>, > Les Ginsberg <ginsb...@cisco.com>, Stefano Previdi <sprev...@cisco.com> > > > A new version of I-D, draft-filsfils-spring-sr-recursing-info-02.txt > has been successfully submitted

Re: [spring] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-01.txt

: Segment Routing interworking with LDP >Authors : Clarence Filsfils > Stefano Previdi > Ahmed Bashandy > Bruno Decraene > Stephane Litkowski > Filena

Re: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution - WG adoption call

as co-author, I support the WG adoption of this draft s. > On Apr 14, 2016, at 9:50 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > Dear WG, > > As we discussed at our meeting last week, working group adoption has been > requested for draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution. > Please reply to the

Re: [spring] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-01.txt

just a refresh with updated references. Any comments/feedbakc is welcome. Thanks. s. > On Apr 13, 2016, at 4:50 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-01.txt > has been successfully submitted by Stefano Pre

Re: [spring] Terry Manderson's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: (with DISCUSS)

gt; wrote: > > Stefano, > > Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS, when I see a rev of this document > that addresses these items I will review and likely clear the discuss. > > Cheers > Terry > > On 5/04/2016, 4:04 AM, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)&q

Re: [spring] Terry Manderson's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: (with DISCUSS)

Hi Terry, sorry for coming back late on this. See below: > On Jan 19, 2016, at 4:11 AM, Terry Manderson > wrote: > > Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: Discuss > > When responding, please keep

  1   2   >