Re: [spring] Updating the SPRING WG Charter

For clarification:

Can I assume that we are talking about replication at ingress to a 
series of  unicast SR paths each to an installed multicast tree close to 
egress?

- Stewart

On 10/06/2018 10:58, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hey Sasha,
>
> 100% agree with your last post. Very glad to see your support for 
> spray/fan-out or if you will
> static MDTs to be in scope of SPRING.
>
> Based on number of WG members input expressed both at the meeting and 
> on the list  I hope
> proposed SPRING charter will be updated soon to reflect that.
>
> Cheers,
> R.
>
> PS. Btw - I am also ok that ingress replication is not relevant to 
> SPRING as it essentially happens at the
> ingress to the domain. 
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 7:39 AM, Alexander Vainshtein 
> <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com 
> <mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>> wrote:
>
>     Robert,
>
>     First of all, I did not say that your quote was inaccurate. I
>     apologize for possible misperception.
>
>     Second, I believe that spray or fan-out (meaning support of
>     externally computed static MDTs) in SR-MPLS is a relevant focus
>     area for the future WG work. Of course the solution must be
>     aligned with the SPRING and MPLS architecture, and this imposes
>     additional restrictions on how such a solution would look.
>
>     Last but not least, I have differentiated (from my first email on
>     this thread) */ingress replication/* *in SR* from the more generic
>     *multicast support *in SR:
>
>     -The latter is quite acceptable to me
>
>     -The former, IMHO, should be left out of scope.
>
>     Hope this helps to clarify my position.
>
>     Regards, and, again, apologies for possible misinterpretation.
>
>     Sasha
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring