Kamran: Hi!
That (below) doesn’t match the last state I had from you — from the presentation at IETF 123 Madrid. Please look for the thread titled "Plan for draft-ietf-spring-srv6-yang-base” (also attached). The big item for me (from your slides in Madrid) was the point about "Authors to address the open items and gaps in srv6-base module”, but there wasn’t a change in the base module between draft-ietf-spring-srv6-yang-05 and draft-ietf-spring-srv6-yang-base-00. https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-spring-srv6-yang-05&url2=draft-ietf-spring-srv6-yang-base-00&difftype=--html https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/123/materials/slides-123-spring-update-on-yang-models-for-srv6-base-and-static-00 I’ve been waiting for you to confirm since I first sent that other email (on Jan/15). Thanks! Alvaro. On April 28, 2026 at 4:16:52 PM, Kamran Raza (skraza) ([email protected]) wrote: Hi Alvaro and chairs, Firstly, we (the authors) apologize for the delay in taking next steps for this draft after last update couple of IETFs ago. Last time we discussed this (in/around Montreal IETF), this doc / draft: - had been updated with missing gaps (e.g. SID structure) - had no pending items, - was ready for WGLC The agreed next step was to call for formal review from YANG Doctors. We had thought it would have initiated by the chairs but likely this was a disconnect from our (authors’) side and we should have requested it already. Could we please use this email to request YANG-DR review now ? We will ensure to address comments from YANG-DR review immediately to progress this document towards publication. Best regards, — Kamran (on behalf of authors) *From: *Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> *Date: *Tuesday, April 28, 2026 at 2:32 PM *To: *[email protected] <[email protected]> *Cc: *[email protected] < [email protected]>; spring-chairs < [email protected]> *Subject: *New Editors for draft-ietf-spring-srv6-yang-base Dear WG: We are looking for volunteers to take over as Editor(s) for draft-ietf-spring-srv6-yang-base (YANG Data Model for SRv6 Base). This draft is holding up work in several WGs (including spring) that depend on it, so moving it forward is a priority. Please reply to this email if you are interested in taking over an Editor role. Ideally, you will have experience with YANG and be familiar with this document. We (spring-chairs) will decide who the new Editor(s) will be. Thanks! Alvaro.
Hi!
The draft has expired. It has now been 6 months since we last heard from you. :-(
As this is a WG draft and other documents depend on it, we will put out a call on the list next week for an alternate group of editors to take over the work.
Take care!
Alvaro.
On March 5, 2026 at 10:25:41 AM, Alvaro Retana ([email protected]) wrote:
Hi!We’re almost at IETF 125, and we haven’t heard back from you. :-(Other documents depend on this one. If you’re not interested in this work (or too busy), we can find alternate editors in the WG.Please let us know soon.Alvaro.On January 29, 2026 at 2:12:30 PM, Alvaro Retana ([email protected]) wrote:
Ping!On January 15, 2026 at 12:19:21 PM, Alvaro Retana ([email protected]) wrote:
Dear authors:I hope everyone is doing well. Happy New Year!We split this draft off to accelerate its progress. It has been almost 3 months, and I haven't seen any movement.What is the plan? I would like to see a specific timeline. Please keep in mind that other work depends on this document.At IETF 123 [1], you mentioned these initial steps:• Authors to address the open items and gaps in srv6-base module• Afterwards, authors request chairs to initiate an early YANGDOCTORS review on SRv6 base modulesI don't see any changes in the base module between draft-ietf-spring-srv6-yang-05 and draft-ietf-spring-srv6-yang-base-00.Thanks!Alvaro.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
