Hi Alvaro, Sure, we will address the comments in the updated version.
Thank you all for providing comments to improve the draft. Best Regards, Shuping From: Alvaro Retana [mailto:aretana.i...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 2:07 AM To: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org> Cc: draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-pol...@ietf.org; spring Chairs <spring-cha...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: spring WG Adoption Call for draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy Hi! This message concludes the adoption call: there is enough interest and support to continue the work in the WG. Authors: Please submit draft-ietf-spring-pmtu-sr-policy-00 after the submission window opens back up. There are several comments made on the list (including my review) that should be addressed as we move forward. Please reply to any outstanding comments/reviews indicating how the comments are handled in an updated version of the draft. Thanks! Alvaro. On June 18, 2024 at 11:41:33 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.i...@gmail.com<mailto:aretana.i...@gmail.com>) 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 -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org
