Dear WG As an co-author, I support the adoption of this draft.
As Shuping mentioned some background on this draft: During the adoption of the related PCEP draft“draf-ietf-pce-pcep-pmtu-02”, a need for a document in SPRING was requested and confirmed by both PCE & SPRING WG chairs. As well during the IDR document “draft-ietf-idr-sr- policy-path-mtu-05” adoption call, a discussion was brought up that the concept of “Path MTU” for SR Policy and its applicability should be first defined in SPRING WG before we introduce signaling aspects into BGP. Following these discussions and needs, this draft was created and being developed in the SPRING WG. As a result the overall goal was that the PCE PMTU extension adoption call, the draft “draf-ietf-pce-pcep-pmtu-02” was to maintain only protocol extension specific details, while the SR Policy PMTU definition & framework was to be developed in SPRING WG as a Standards Track document to ensure vendor interoperability related to SR-PMTU concepts and computation details. Please review the latest draft as well as I presented this draft in 2022 IETF 114 and 115. https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/114/proceedings https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/115/proceedings Kind Regards Gyan On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 11:44 AM Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear WG: > > This message starts a two-week adoption call for > draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy, ending on July/2nd. From the > Abstract: > > This document defines the Path MTU (PMTU) for Segment Routing (SR) > Policy (called SR-PMTU). It applies to both Segment Routing over IPv6 > (SRv6) and SR-MPLS. This document specifies the framework of SR-PMTU > for SR Policy including the link MTU collection, the SR-PMTU > computation, the SR-PMTU enforcement, and the handling behaviours on > the headend. > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy/ > > > Please review the draft and consider whether you support its adoption > by the WG. Please share any thoughts with the list to indicate support > or opposition -- this is not a vote. > > If you are willing to provide a more in-depth review, please state it > explicitly to give the chairs an indication of the energy level in the > working group willing to work on the document. > > WG adoption is the start of the process. The fundamental question is > whether you agree the proposal is worth the WG's time to work on and > whether this draft represents a good starting point. The chairs are > particularly interested in hearing the opinions of people who are not > authors of the document. > > Note that draft-ietf-pce-pcep-pmtu ("Support for Path MTU (PMTU) in > the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)") > Normatively references this document. It may be helpful to look at > that document too. > > Thanks! > > Alvaro (for the Chairs) > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
