[mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bryant-mpls-unified-ip-sr-01.txt

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 11 August 2017 18:53 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD2B41321A5 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vvZkk8oMHYao for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51EBE132198 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v7BIrSN8028990 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 19:53:28 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (196.252.114.87.dyn.plus.net [87.114.252.196]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v7BIrR8o028966 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 19:53:28 +0100
Reply-To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: <mpls@ietf.org>
References: <150247679913.24555.11731619545096839826.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <e757ba5b317644d589fa4b536c724cc2@CO2PR05MB971.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <e757ba5b317644d589fa4b536c724cc2@CO2PR05MB971.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 19:53:25 +0100
Message-ID: <053e01d312d3$1dcba0c0$5962e240$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHn/qs4BvcCTQFwrnhrRd9ZEGKw2AIdtmzDokS5lxA=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.1.0.1062-23252.001
X-TM-AS-Result: No--14.259-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--14.259-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: LVaQDjbTf5ZRmqKPf9hWfRWUpKmwDqYXpWPht074Wo3SYAzZ6KmqWpcs plTVe7L9UsGys+Gt4p3BKp4I4GDxolUOzv+ERMvrCFaAixm5eU+IklyLMg3/dUuNdcZDLqeUBUz 2Q+xpjHgUBgz2TpDbYVe/mDhUGtdRVatb/Qtg459NCH0Dib0S0enyXFanZ6WWHRspwjeLvSW3Cq /Z6GbmSYFGaStotYFxAAwi6RbCP0Mlr4UAbUFME1Pjo7D4SFg4s+A++/BnIBELigFCwAAoVmn7A lTb8W2x1rAakX1NXfNp0oDM6nL2lrRgLeduNs8xnVTWWiNp+v+usS9CiBzL8TCmUYns3FLTRqnq 9R/Uhp+fjLsLfKL5DyYUZQpKb/mLu+66Sy5jOwLBVprK8rvWX5naxzJFBx6vK+FdZvMwaZIwtKS SEFIiTr9CxDhcG785urds0in797Kc95xD+Eo4wIDqq/69HfgsA7f8DkoYc/+bKItl61J/ycnjLT A/UDoAnL8I93XanonFNZytR+M1BN0H8LFZNFG7NwH7I8fAFRqe/SaBTu5gaft9s6irGqahvYIHv 30Uhd1l/cEp+49H7ZjNd3a1vB20
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/wx_tAAsm0UFHffIMduC041IsHIw>
Subject: [mpls] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bryant-mpls-unified-ip-sr-01.txt
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 18:53:33 -0000

All,

The presentation of this draft in Prague seemed to be well received and we got
some comments that we have stated to act on in this revision.

One, non-technical request was to share the work with the SPRING working group,
and I have just done that.

At the meeting I noted that...
> The authors think this is in charter for MPLS
> But polish and discussion is needed before we ask for adoption

As this polish continues, I'd like to ask the list what they think of this work.
Is it going in the right direction? Is it work that you support?

Thanks,
Adrian

> ________________________________________
> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Sent: 11 August 2017 19:39:59 (UTC+00:00) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London
> To: Stewart Bryant; John E Drake; Adrian Farrel
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-bryant-mpls-unified-ip-sr-01.txt
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-bryant-mpls-unified-ip-sr-01.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Adrian Farrel and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Name:           draft-bryant-mpls-unified-ip-sr
> Revision:       01
> Title:          A Unified Approach to IP Segment Routing
> Document date:  2017-08-11
> Group:          Individual Submission
> Pages:          16
> URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bryant-mpls-unified-ip-sr-
> 01.txt
> Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bryant-mpls-unified-ip-sr/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bryant-mpls-unified-ip-sr-01
> Htmlized:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bryant-mpls-unified-ip-
> sr-01
> Diff:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bryant-mpls-unified-ip-sr-01
> 
> Abstract:
>    Segment routing is a source routed forwarding method that allows
>    packets to be steered through a network on paths other than the
>    shortest path derived from the routing protocol.  The approach uses
>    information encoded in the packet header to partially or completely
>    specify the route the packet takes through the network, and does not
>    make use of a signaling protocol to pre-install paths in the network.
> 
>    Two different encapsulations have been defined to enable segment
>    routing in an MPLS network and in an IPv6 network.  While
>    acknowledging that there is a strong need to support segment routing
>    in both environments, this document defines a converged, unified
>    approach to segment routing that enables a single mechanism to be
>    applied in both types of network.  The resulting approach is also
>    applicable to IPv4 networks without the need for any changes to the
>    IPv4 specification.
> 
>    This document makes no changes to the segment routing architecture
>    and builds on existing protocol mechanisms such as the encapsulation
>    of MPLS within UDP defined in RFC 7510.
> 
>    No new procedures are introduced, but existing mechanisms are
>    combined to achieve the desired result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> The IETF Secretariat