[spring] Re: Moving towards WGLC (draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-srv6)

[Rakesh Gandhi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alvaro,

Thank you for your email note.

Please see replies inline with <RG>....

On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 4:22 PM Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:

> [Changed the subject and the author’s alias.]
>
>
> Rakesh:
>
> I’ll add this document to the queue.
>

<RG> Thanks!

>
> There was some engagement in June (around the time you first asked for the
> split).  I’m assuming that any common definitions or procedures are
> included in this draft, right?
>

<RG> Yes.


> If there are any pieces of the common definitions, or the SRv6 part
> specifically, where you may want the WG to weigh in, now would be a good
> time to ask.
>

<RG> Ok. There is nothing outstanding at the moment.


>
>
> I took a very quick look and the reference
> to I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment should be Normative because the PSID
> is part of the specified procedures (from §4.3.1): "The Path Segment
> Identifier (PSID) [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment] of the SRv6 Policy
> (for the Segment List or for the Candidate-Path) is added to the Segment
> List of the STAMP test packets when the egress node supports PSID
> processing.”
>

<RG> Ok, it's used for the SR Policy direct (loss) measurement case.


>
> I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-path-segment is also on the WGLC queue, so we’ll
> process this one after that.
>

<RG> Ok, thanks!

Regards,
Rakesh (for authors)




>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
> On October 3, 2025 at 8:56:31 AM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) (
> [e-mail]) wrote:
>
> Thanks Alvaro and WG.
>
>
>
> FYI:
>
> We have published following split drafts:
>
>    1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-srv6/
>    2. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-mpls/
>
>
>
> We also like to request WGLC for the first draft (SRv6 PM).
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>
> P.S. Good opportunity for WGLC for 00 version draft😊
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, September 30, 2025 at 1:08 PM
> *To: *[e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>
> *Cc: *spring Chairs <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: Splitting the SR STAMP document
> (draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm)
>
> Dear authors:
>
>
>
> We received no objections to your request.  Please submit two drafts:
> draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-srv6 and draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm-mpls
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Alvaro.
>
>
>
> On September 18, 2025 at 1:38:59 PM, Alvaro Retana ([e-mail])
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear spring WG:
>
>
>
> During the recent meeting in Madrid, the authors of
> draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm (Performance Measurement Using STAMP for
> Segment Routing Networks) requested opinions on splitting the document into
> two to separate the procedures that apply to SRv6 and MPLS.
>
>
>
> For more background, please see the slides from IETF 123:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/123/materials/slides-123-spring-performance-measurement-using-stamp-for-segment-routing-networks-00
>
>
>
>
>
>
> During the discussion, the use of MNA was questioned, and we agreed to
> consult with the mpls WG.  We will postpone that consultation until the WG
> decides whether splitting the document is ok.
>
>
>
>
>
> If anyone objects, please reply to this message by EOD on September 26,
> 2025.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Alvaro.
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>