I have just read the draft and agree that it should be adopted by the
WG. It solves an important problem in instrumenting and protecting an SR
path.
It should be noted that we needed to do something very similar in
mainstream MPLS via the synonymous label work which is already adopted.
However SL did not address the SR case. We therefore need this path
label work to be progressed.
- Stewart
On 10/02/2019 08:11, Loa Andersson wrote:
Working Group,
I have reviewed draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment and as far
as I can see, it is ready for wg adoption.
There were some comments in Bangkok, but due to the many collisions
between working groups at that meeting I couldn't attend the SPRING
f2f.
The minutes are not clear, but as far as I understand, there is
nothing that can't be resolved in the wg process.
/Loa
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
