I support adoption. 

Thanks,
Acee

> On Nov 3, 2026, at 1:04 PM, Tarek Saad <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Also adding TEAS WG for relevance to RSVP-TE protocol.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> From: Tarek Saad <[email protected]>
> Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2026 at 10:03 AM
> To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] 
> <[email protected]>; [email protected] 
> <[email protected]>; spring <[email protected]>
> Cc: spring Chairs <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Call for adoption: draft-beeram-mpls-rsvp-sr-01 (Ends 2026-11-17)
> 
> Adding the SPRING WG to this thread due to the document's relevance to 
> Segment Routing.
> 
> Regards,
> Tarek (as MPLS WG chair)
> 
> From: Tarek Saad via Datatracker <[email protected]>
> Date: Sunday, November 1, 2026 at 8:35 PM
> To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] 
> <[email protected]>; [email protected] 
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: Call for adoption: draft-beeram-mpls-rsvp-sr-01 (Ends 2026-11-17)
> 
> This message starts a mpls WG Call for Adoption of:
> draft-beeram-mpls-rsvp-sr-01
> 
> This Working Group Call for Adoption ends on 2026-11-17
> 
> Abstract:
>    RFC 8577 introduced the concept of signaling RSVP-TE tunnels on a
>    shared MPLS forwarding plane using preinstalled "TE link labels".
>    Those labels are functionally equivalent to Segment Routing (SR)
>    Adjacency Segment Identifiers (Adj-SIDs) but are allocated and
>    distributed solely via RSVP-TE signaling.
> 
>    This document extends RFC 8577 so that RSVP-TE tunnels can use
>    Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS) Adj-SIDs, as specified in RFC
>    8402 and RFC 8660, in place of TE link labels.  It restricts scope to
>    Adj-SIDs attached to a single unidirectional adjacency and defines
>    the signaling procedures and protocol extensions required to couple
>    the RSVP-TE control plane with the SR-MPLS data plane.
> 
> Please reply to this message and indicate whether or not you support adoption
> of this Internet-Draft by the mpls WG. Comments to explain your preference
> are greatly appreciated. Please reply to all recipients of this message and
> include this message in your response.
> 
> Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded of the Intellectual
> Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79 [2].
> Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions
> of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of any.
> Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can be
> found at [3].
> 
> Thank you.
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/
> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/
> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-beeram-mpls-rsvp-sr/
> 
> There is also an HTMLized version available at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-beeram-mpls-rsvp-sr-01
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-beeram-mpls-rsvp-sr-01
> _______________________________________________
> 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]

Reply via email to