Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution

A few comments from my perspective as co-author.

This is a problem for which it is important to have a standardized solution, so moving the draft forward is an important part of successfully deploying Segment Routing over an MPLS dataplane. 

This draft has been the subject of lively debate over the last 1.5 years - and I have contributed to that debate in part because of concerns about the complexity of the defined solution ("ignore overlap only").

Since the draft was last presented in Seoul I have spent time discussing the requirements with multiple operators and I have become convinced that the deployment cases do indeed require the solution that is defined in the draft. I therefore support the draft without reservation and encourage others to do the same. I think the latest version (note it is V5 - which corrected a few errors that existed in V4) is a mature document which addresses real world deployment cases.

Martin - I am not aware of any IPR relevant to this draft.

    Les

> -----Original Message-----
> From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin
> Vigoureux
> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 5:58 AM
> To: spring@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [spring] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution
> 
> WG,
> 
> We are half-way through the WG Last Call and I am very surprised to only see
> a single answer to it.
> 
> I am not sure I'll move this forward with only silence as support.
> 
> -m
> 
> Le 29/06/2017 à 15:28, Martin Vigoureux a écrit :
> > Hello Working Group,
> >
> > This email starts a Working Group Last Call on
> > draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution-04 [1] which is considered
> > mature and ready for a final working group review.
> >
> > ¤ Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent
> > version yet, and send your comments to the list, no later than *21st
> > of July*.
> > Note that this is *not only* a call for comments on the document; it
> > is also a call for support (or not) to publish this document as a
> > Proposed Standard RFC.
> >
> > ¤ *Coincidentally*, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that
> > applies to draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution, to ensure that IPR
> > has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979,
> > 4879,
> > 3669 and 5378 for more details).
> >
> > If you are listed as an Author or Contributor of
> > draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution-04 please respond to this email
> > and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.
> >
> > Note that, as of today, no IPR has been disclosed against this
> > document or its earlier versions.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Martin
> >
> > [1]
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution
> > /
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > spring mailing list
> > spring@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring