Dear, Alvaro et al., my apologies for the belated note. I read the draft and found it well-written. Thank you, Authors! Section 4 is very useful (more thanks). As was explained, there are several drafts closely related to this work. I am not sure to whom my questions addressed, but I appreciate your consideration:
- As I understand it, SR Policy PMTU is based on nodes advertising Link MTUs. It might be helpful to discuss the benefit of that approach compared to the Path MTU Discovery using ICMP. - It seems like the draft provides essential definitions and defines the SR Policy PMTU framework. AFAIK, similar documents usually are developed as Informational. Perhaps change of the track could be considered for this draft. In conclusion, I support adoption of this draft. Regards, Greg On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 8:45 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]
