Re: [spring] Working Group Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy

["Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Chairs/All,

At the IETF London and afterwards over the mailing list, the chairs have asked us to split the SR Policy draft into sub-documents to allow for faster proceeding of the core concepts. As asked and discussed, the authors have proceeded to split draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy-05 as follows:


1)     The core architecture of SR Policy has been published<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy-06> as draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy-06.

2)     The section 13 on traffic counters has been moved to an existing draft and a new version of draft-ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting-01 has been posted<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting-01>, accordingly.

3)     The contents of section 14, the Appendix, and a few other sections have been published<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-sr-policy-considerations-00> as a new informational draft,  draft-filsfils-spring-sr-policy-considerations-00.

Please let know if you have any questions or feedback.

Thanks,
Ketan (on behalf of authors of draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy)

From: spring <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Rob Shakir
Sent: 16 May 2018 20:50
To: SPRING WG List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [spring] Working Group Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy

Hi SPRING WG,

This email initiates a two week call for working group adoption for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy. Please indicate your support, or otherwise, for adopting this draft as a working group item by 30th May 2018. We are particularly interested in hearing from working group members that are not co-authors of this draft.

As part of the discussions of adopting this draft into SPRING with the ADs and chairs of other WGs, there are a number of requests to the authors.

1. Please clarify in the text traffic steering with "SR policy" and its relationship to other traffic engineering functions. It seems to me that this work is generally describing how one selects and steers traffic into policies, rather than path calculation. Additional clarification of whether this is the case (or not), would be welcome to ensure that the relationship with other work is clear. We would ask the authors to consider whether sections 14.1-14.4 are required scope of this document.

2.. Consider what the core content of this document is, and how it can be make as concise and clear as possible. There are some specific suggestions that can be made here, but we would like to see this discussed with the working group.

Additionally, there are currently 17 authors listed on this document. Please trim this to <= 5 front-page authors, utilising a "Contributors" section if required for the others.. An approach to achieving this would be to list ~2 editors as the front-page authors.

In parallel to this adoption call, I will send an IPR call for this document. We will need all 17 authors to confirm their IPR position on this document.

Thanks,
Bruno & Rob.