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

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

 [Changed the subject and the author’s alias.]


Rakesh:

I’ll add this document to the queue.

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?  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.


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.”

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

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.