Re: [bess] Request for an expedited WG last call for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Matthew.


On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 8:42 AM Matthew Bocci (Nokia) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Ketan
>
> Thanks for the update. I’ll note this request in the WG status update.
>
>
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> *From: *Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 20 March 2024 at 12:22
> *To: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *BESS <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Request for an expedited WG last call for
> draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args
>
>
>
> *CAUTION:* This is an external email. Please be very careful when
> clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for
> additional information.
>
>
>
> Hello WG/Chairs,
>
>
>
> The authors would like to request for an expedited WGLC for this document
> for the same reason as we requested for an expedited adoption - since it
> "updates" a WG RFC by clarifying aspects (no new functionality).
>
>
>
> We've already reported implementations (prior to WG adoption even).
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ketan (on behalf of co-authors)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 11:48 PM Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> +1
>
>
>
> Cisco (IOS-XR) also has an implementation of this.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ketan
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 11:16 AM Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Nokia has an implementation of draft-trr-bess-bgp-srv6-args in SROS.
>
>
>
> As Ketan says, it is important to make this work WG adopted as soon as
> possible so that new implementors become aware of the changes compared to
> RFC9252.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> *From: *Matthew Bocci (Nokia) <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:25 AM
> *To: *Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>
> *Cc: *[e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>, BESS <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: Request for an expedited WG adoption call for
> draft-trr-bess-bgp-srv6-args
>
> Hi Ketan
>
>
>
> If we can do a quick implementation poll for the changes proposed in the
> draft, that would help.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> *From: *Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Thursday, 27 July 2023 at 15:02
> *To: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *[e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>, BESS <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Request for an expedited WG adoption call for
> draft-trr-bess-bgp-srv6-args
>
>
>
> *CAUTION:* This is an external email. Please be very careful when
> clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for
> additional information.
>
>
>
> Hello Chairs,
>
>
>
> The authors would like to drop this gentle reminder of our request for an
> expedited WG adoption call for this draft that we had presented at IETF116.
>
>
>
> The draft is in essence an "errata" for a certain portion our BESS WG
> RFC9252. The concerned portions of the specification have been in
> development at various vendors for quite some time now. Interop issues were
> identified and these clarifications are needed for smooth interop and
> deployments that are ongoing.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ketan (on behalf of co-authors)
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 10:12 AM Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
>
>
> We had presented
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-trr-bess-bgp-srv6-args/ at the
> IETF 116.
>
>
>
> The slides are available at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/116/materials/slides-116-bess-draft-trr-bess-srv6-args-00.pdf
>
>
>
> Since this draft aims to fix some issues in the RFC9252 that was
> published by BESS WG, we had sought feedback/review from the WG and
> requested the WG chairs for an expedited WG adoption.
>
>
>
> We also wanted to check if any follow-up was required for the comments
> that were discussed at the meeting.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ketan (on behalf of co-authors)
>
>
>
>