[ippm] Re: Consensus call: Splitting draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-ext-hdr

[Rakesh Gandhi <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Marcus for the guidance.

We have posted the split drafts for IPv6 and MPLS as:

*IP Data plane (WG document):*

   - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-ext-hdr-04

*MPLS Data plane (Individual draft):*

   - https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-mpls-hdr-00.txt

Welcome the WG review comments and suggestions.

Regards,
Rakesh (for authors)





On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 4:24 AM Marcus Ihlar <marcus.ihlar=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Having heard no opposition to this proposal we can conclude that there is
> consensus for splitting the document.
>
> Authors, please go ahead and update the current document and create a new
> one.
>
>
>
> BR
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> *From:* Marcus Ihlar <marcus.ihlar=[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Friday, 16 May 2025 16:01
> *To:* IETF IPPM WG ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* [ippm] Consensus call: Splitting draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-ext-hdr
>
>
>
> Hello IPPM,
>
> The authors of STAMP Extensions for Reflecting Packet Headers [1] are
> proposing to split the document into two separate parts, one focusing on
> the IPv6 data plane and another on the MPLS data plane.
>
> This means that the document that is currently adopted would change scope
> to focus on IPv6 only and that a new document would need to be created for
> the MPLS data plane and undergo the usual working group adoption call.
>
>
>
> The rationale for this is to avoid delay of the IPv6 data plane work due
> to a normative dependency on work in MPLS WG.
>
>
>
> If you have any issue with the proposed way forward please indicate so in
> a response to this email by *Friday May 23*.
>
>
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-ext-hdr/
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>