Re: [mpls] [spring] to progress draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment

+1.

I have been following this draft from its -00 revision. The current revision has resolved most of the issues I (and others) have been raised (e.g., elimination of excessive options).

>From my POV, in its current state the draft meets two basic requirements for the WG adoption:

1.       It addresses a real and relevant problem, namely the MPLS Flow Identification problem discussed in general in RFC 8372<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8372> and scoped to SR-MPLS LSPs in this draft. Specifics of SR-MPLS include the need to provide end-to-end liveness check that is one of the requirements explicitly specified in Section 2 of RFC 8355<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8355>.

2.       It provides a reasonable (from my POV) approach to  solution of this problem.

I also concur with Stewart's comment about strong similarity between the approach taken in this draft for SR-MPLS and generic work in progress on synonymous flow labels<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-04> that has been already adopted as a MPLS WG item.  To me this is yet another indication that the draft should be adopted.

My 2c,

Sasha

Office: +972-39266302

Cell:      +972-549266302

Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com

-----Original Message-----
From: spring <spring-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 12:48 PM
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>; spring@ietf.org; draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] to progress draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment

I have just read the draft and agree that it should be adopted by the WG. It solves an important problem in instrumenting and protecting an SR path.

It should be noted that we needed to do something very similar in mainstream MPLS via the synonymous label work which is already adopted.

However SL did not address the SR case. We therefore need this path label work to be progressed.

- Stewart

On 10/02/2019 08:11, Loa Andersson wrote:

> Working Group,

>

> I have reviewed draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment and as far as I

> can see, it is ready for wg adoption.

>

> There were some comments in Bangkok, but due to the many collisions

> between working groups at that meeting I couldn't attend the SPRING

> f2f.

>

> The minutes are not clear, but as far as I understand, there is

> nothing that can't be resolved in the wg process.

>

> /Loa

_______________________________________________

spring mailing list

spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is 
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this 
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original 
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________