[spring] Re: Second WG Last Call: draft-ietf-spring-srv6-security-14 (Ends 2026-06-02)

[Nick Buraglio <[e-mail]>]

Indeed. I'd also like to get any early input from Jean-Michel Combes,
I believe we addressed the concerns from that review as well.

nb


On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 12:58 PM Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Thanks Nick!
>
>
> I would love a positive ack from the people who raised the issues/suggestions before moving forward.  Specifically, Weiqiang and Tom.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
> On June 24, 2026 at 9:50:51 PM, Nick Buraglio ([e-mail]) wrote:
>
> Apologies for the long tail. We have just published -15 which I think incorporates all of the agreed-upon above suggestions.
>
> nb
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 11:42 AM Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you to everyone who has made comments and provided reviews!
>>
>> While there is strong support to move this draft forward, there are still a couple of open items that need to be addressed. Even though the period has ended and the comments have died down for now, we will wait until the open items are addressed before officially closing the WGLC and sending this draft to the IESG.
>>
>> Alvaro.
>>
>> On May 18, 2026 at 3:44:57 PM, Alvaro Retana via Datatracker ([e-mail]) wrote:
>>
>> This message starts a Second WG Last Call for:
>> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-security-14
>>
>> This Working Group Last Call ends on 2026-06-02
>>
>> Abstract:
>> SRv6 is a traffic engineering, encapsulation and steering mechanism
>> utilizing IPv6 addresses to identify segments in a pre-defined
>> policy. This document discusses security considerations in SRv6
>> networks, including the potential threats and the possible mitigation
>> methods. The document does not define any new security protocols or
>> extensions to existing protocols.
>>
>> File can be retrieved from:
>>
>> Please review and indicate your support or objection to proceed with the
>> publication of this document by replying to this email keeping
>> [e-mail] in copy. Objections should be explained and suggestions to
>> resolve them are highly appreciated.
>>
>> Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded of the Intellectual
>> Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79 [1].
>> Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions
>> of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of any.
>> Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can be
>> found at [3].
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/
>> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/
>> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-security/
>>
>> There is also an HTML version available at:
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-security-14.html
>>
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-spring-srv6-security-14