Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11

"Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com> Fri, 30 October 2020 02:02 UTC

Return-Path: <c.l@huawei.com>
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 E53983A0989; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 19:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ong6VFqelv-h; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 19:02:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2F923A0983; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 19:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml718-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 16E92BF67C0891E1F2DC; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 02:02:01 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from lhreml718-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.69) by lhreml718-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.69) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 02:02:00 +0000
Received: from DGGEML422-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.39) by lhreml718-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.69) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 02:02:00 +0000
Received: from DGGEML529-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.249]) by dggeml422-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 10:01:54 +0800
From: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com>
To: James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
CC: "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, "spring-chairs@ietf.org" <spring-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11
Thread-Index: Adaobz3858vbu82jQ/ClUjOYTy5CmQF8P8ag
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 02:01:53 +0000
Message-ID: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02C801DE@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <DM6PR13MB3066F695F1ABFC22C52CEA3BD21D0@DM6PR13MB3066.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR13MB3066F695F1ABFC22C52CEA3BD21D0@DM6PR13MB3066.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.243.130]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02C801DEdggeml529mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/WapODt8Kx6SBBjk6dtZj-t-oeW4>
Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 02:02:06 -0000

Hi WG,

Support. However, there are some encoding format changes among versions, hope the encoding format can be stable in the following revision ASAP.

Many thanks for the authors' contribution!

Thanks,
Cheng



From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Guichard
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 8:52 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: ippm-chairs@ietf.org; spring-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11

Dear WG:

This message starts a 3 week WG adoption call for document https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11 ending November 12th 2020. Please note that this document has several changes from v-10 that were requested by the SPRING and IPPM chairs. For this reason, the chairs have extended the adoption call for an additional week to allow the WG enough time to review these changes before deciding on WG adoption.

Some background:

Several review comments were received previously for document https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-10. The SPRING and IPPM chairs considered those comments, and upon review of this version of the document, determined the following:


  *   The SPRING document should describe only the procedures relevant to SPRING with pointers to non-SPRING document/s that define any extensions. Several extensions including Control Code Field Extension for TWAMP Light Messages, Loss Measurement Query Message Extensions, and Loss Measurement Response Message Extensions were included in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-10 and should be removed from the SPRING document.
  *   The TWAMP extensions included in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-10 should be described in a new document published in the IPPM WG.

These conclusions were discussed with the authors of  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-10 the result of which is the publication of the following two documents:


  *   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11. The subject of this WG adoption call.
  *   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm-00. This document will be progressed (if determined by the WG) within the IPPM WG.

After review of the SPRING document please indicate support (or not) for WG adoption to the mailing list. Please also provide comments/reasons for that support (or lack thereof) as silence will not be considered as consent.

Finally, the chairs would like to thank the authors for their efforts in this matter.

Thanks!

Jim, Bruno, & Joel