[spring] 答复: spring WG Adoption Call for draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy

Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Wed, 03 July 2024 06:57 UTC

Return-Path: <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9894C17C884; Tue, 2 Jul 2024 23:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kRE2EgahApSg; Tue, 2 Jul 2024 23:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-m17207.xmail.ntesmail.com (mail-m17207.xmail.ntesmail.com [45.195.17.207]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3376BC1CAF3F; Tue, 2 Jul 2024 23:57:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LAPTOP09T7970K (unknown [219.142.69.75]) by smtp.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id AB3247E0217; Wed, 3 Jul 2024 14:57:15 +0800 (CST)
From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: 'Alvaro Retana' <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, 'SPRING WG' <spring@ietf.org>
References: <20240618234522.A0862540218@smtp.qiye.163.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240618234522.A0862540218@smtp.qiye.163.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2024 14:57:15 +0800
Message-ID: <001101dacd16$3cf9cf30$b6ed6d90$@tsinghua.org.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQGHRe1526HfYLfBNHYQ2sodSHxiWbKLoCtw
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUpXWQgPGg8OCBgUHx5ZQUlOS1dZFg8aDwILHllBWSg2Ly tZV1koWUFKTEtLSjdXWS1ZQUlXWQ8JGhUIEh9ZQVlDHxlNVhgZSEgZSh5DGUxJS1YeHw5VEwETFh oSFyQUDg9ZV1kYEgtZQVlJSkJVSk9JVU1CVUxOWVdZFhoPEhUdFFlBWU9LSFVKS0lPT09IVUpLS1 VKQktLWQY+
X-HM-Tid: 0a907762185e03a2kunmab3247e0217
X-HM-MType: 10
X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6MD46Nhw4PDMDGQ9JSBwOITAD TDMKCy5VSlVKTEpCQkNCQ0hNSUxNVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlJSkJVSk9JVU1CVUxOWVdZCAFZQUhDSEo3Bg++
Message-ID-Hash: U7CKCJTEK4LMJE5453C2XMOAGXBF2D6E
X-Message-ID-Hash: U7CKCJTEK4LMJE5453C2XMOAGXBF2D6E
X-MailFrom: wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-spring.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy@ietf.org, 'spring Chairs' <spring-chairs@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [spring] 答复: spring WG Adoption Call for draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG (SPRING)" <spring.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/O6tXBQld5mvlcSaatrYSVcKmAF8>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:spring-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:spring-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:spring-leave@ietf.org>

Yes/Support.

Very curious that this document is adopted after the two related protocols extension WG documents.


Best Regards

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: forwardingalgorithm@ietf.org [mailto:forwardingalgorithm@ietf.org] 代表 Alvaro Retana
发送时间: 2024年6月18日 23:42
收件人: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>
抄送: draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy@ietf.org; spring Chairs <spring-chairs@ietf.org>
主题: [spring] spring WG Adoption Call for draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy

Dear WG:

This message starts a two-week adoption call for draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy, ending on July/2nd. From the
Abstract:

   This document defines the Path MTU (PMTU) for Segment Routing (SR)
   Policy (called SR-PMTU). It applies to both Segment Routing over IPv6
   (SRv6) and SR-MPLS. This document specifies the framework of SR-PMTU
   for SR Policy including the link MTU collection, the SR-PMTU
   computation, the SR-PMTU enforcement, and the handling behaviours on
   the headend.


   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-spring-pmtu-sr-policy/


Please review the draft and consider whether you support its adoption by the WG. Please share any thoughts with the list to indicate support or opposition -- this is not a vote.

If you are willing to provide a more in-depth review, please state it explicitly to give the chairs an indication of the energy level in the working group willing to work on the document.

WG adoption is the start of the process. The fundamental question is whether you agree the proposal is worth the WG's time to work on and whether this draft represents a good starting point. The chairs are particularly interested in hearing the opinions of people who are not authors of the document.

Note that draft-ietf-pce-pcep-pmtu ("Support for Path MTU (PMTU) in the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)") Normatively references this document. It may be helpful to look at that document too.

Thanks!

Alvaro (for the Chairs)

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to spring-leave@ietf.org