Re: [bmwg] Request To Review draft-vfv-bmwg-srv6-bench-meth-06
"sbanks@encrypted.net" <sbanks@encrypted.net> Mon, 07 August 2023 18:49 UTC
Return-Path: <sbanks@encrypted.net>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3370C151534 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.704
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.704 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)" header.d=encrypted.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s8mQCXS7JZ9Y for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xyz.hosed.org (xyz.hosed.org [71.114.67.91]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BD83C151066 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xyz.hosed.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BFD719C33D0; Mon, 7 Aug 2023 14:49:29 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at xyz.hosed.org
Received: from xyz.hosed.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (xyz.hosed.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DD5ugI3HO3GZ; Mon, 7 Aug 2023 14:49:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (c-73-71-250-98.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.71.250.98]) by xyz.hosed.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4418219C11DB; Mon, 7 Aug 2023 14:49:29 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=encrypted.net; s=default; t=1691434169; bh=OTN06sDEfP2nKbcFNKtj4+A78H4v3rblCqOPJbjmnsc=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=Le6u2GXik8jR6r58GSCp1fR5UQjOx49zO4wksqko15tpuzKx/Pr6MKhLtq6mfwYks UkRTH+otHabjKqQW6vDLbc0pSfA3OvR6ZHyi3XAQ4iVP7EmNkpdTU94Flcovh3/hbW BFnhbt6hGMtnwKSx7dfMwBoepN5BuauygT8wFVG0=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.400.51.1.1\))
From: "sbanks@encrypted.net" <sbanks@encrypted.net>
In-Reply-To: <e96d1651-f6e3-37de-bf1d-9232983dbb8e@hit.bme.hu>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2023 11:49:16 -0700
Cc: bmwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <07BF66D5-2437-4BAE-8A9D-4F27BFCC9957@encrypted.net>
References: <CH0PR02MB7980F704447663D54D5BC514D3469@CH0PR02MB7980.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <9E361251-CB71-42E0-918D-8A0148771116@encrypted.net> <e96d1651-f6e3-37de-bf1d-9232983dbb8e@hit.bme.hu>
To: Gábor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.400.51.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/aBlP2kxarrers9A28akBRkzg-0Q>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Request To Review draft-vfv-bmwg-srv6-bench-meth-06
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2023 18:49:35 -0000
Hi Gabor, Thank you for sharing this feedback, and for your continued review of the drafts, we appreciate it! Authors, there’s an outstanding item from IETF117 where the suggestion/discussion point was around whether or not to consolidate the IPv6 and MPLS for SR drafts into 1 prior to WG adoption. I understand we are just around 2 weeks after the meeting, and it’s the summer, where holidays and vacations are happening. Reiterating the discussion from the room, we (the authors :)) agreed to have the discussion around consolidation; I’d like to kick that off now. There’s no clock or deadline on it though, just being respectful of summer holidays. I’ll send a separate note to the WG in a moment, so it’s not lost in a reply/in this thread. Thank you, Sarah > On Aug 1, 2023, at 12:26 AM, Gábor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu> wrote: > > Dear Sarah and Authors, > > I have already reviewed version 05 of this draft and I wrote my comments/recommendations to the list on March 12, 9:04 PM (CET). > > Two of them (the scope selection in the Introduction and the omission of BGP in Section 3.2) were addressed by Eduard on the list the next day. > > Now I have validated the updates of version 06 against my recommendations and I found that the rest of my recommendations have been incorporated. > > So I am satisfied with the update and I think that the document is useful and I support its adoption. > > I am also aware that by writing this I make an implicit promise to read it again later at least one more time e.g., at WGLC if not before. :-) > > Best regards, > > Gábor > > > > 7/6/2023 9:39 PM keltezéssel, sbanks@encrypted.net írta: >> Hi BMWG, >> Following up on the request here, I’d like to ask other folks to volunteer and review this document, and share your feedback with the list. >> >> Thank you, >> Sarah >> >>> On May 25, 2023, at 9:22 AM, MORTON JR., AL <acmorton@att.com> wrote: >>> >>> BWMG, >>> >>> This is a request for volunteers to review >>> Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Segment Routing >>> draft-vfv-bmwg-srv6-bench-meth-06 >>> >>> This call for reviewers may lead to a call for WG adoption of the draft. >>> >>> The draft is available here: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vfv-bmwg-srv6-bench-meth/ >>> >>> Please reply with your intent to review the draft, and then follow-up with your review posted to the bmwg list. >>> >>> Thanks for your contributions to BMWG, >>> Al >>> bmwg co-chair >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bmwg mailing list >>> bmwg@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg >> _______________________________________________ >> bmwg mailing list >> bmwg@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg >> > > _______________________________________________ > bmwg mailing list > bmwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
- [bmwg] Request To Review draft-vfv-bmwg-srv6-benc… MORTON JR., AL
- Re: [bmwg] Request To Review draft-vfv-bmwg-srv6-… Qi Zhang
- Re: [bmwg] Request To Review draft-vfv-bmwg-srv6-… MORTON JR., AL
- Re: [bmwg] Request To Review draft-vfv-bmwg-srv6-… sbanks@encrypted.net
- Re: [bmwg] Request To Review draft-vfv-bmwg-srv6-… sbanks@encrypted.net
- Re: [bmwg] Request To Review draft-vfv-bmwg-srv6-… Gábor LENCSE
- Re: [bmwg] Request To Review draft-vfv-bmwg-srv6-… sbanks@encrypted.net
- [bmwg] Feedback on the IPv6 and MPLS SR drafts - … sbanks@encrypted.net
- Re: [bmwg] Feedback on the IPv6 and MPLS SR draft… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [bmwg] Feedback on the IPv6 and MPLS SR draft… Carsten Rossenhoevel
- Re: [bmwg] Feedback on the IPv6 and MPLS SR draft… Vasilenko Eduard
- Re: [bmwg] Feedback on the IPv6 and MPLS SR draft… Gábor LENCSE
- Re: [bmwg] Feedback on the IPv6 and MPLS SR draft… Boris Khasanov
- Re: [bmwg] Feedback on the IPv6 and MPLS SR draft… Carsten Rossenhoevel
- Re: [bmwg] Feedback on the IPv6 and MPLS SR draft… Vasilenko Eduard