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

"Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@huawei.com> Mon, 02 November 2020 07:02 UTC

Return-Path: <xiejingrong@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 EED0E3A00D9; Sun, 1 Nov 2020 23:02:51 -0800 (PST)
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 YcGiR7w93kSE; Sun, 1 Nov 2020 23:02:50 -0800 (PST)
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 B37133A00C9; Sun, 1 Nov 2020 23:02:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 063EF7F3791F6536C700; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 07:02:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from nkgeml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.153) by lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 07:02:47 +0000
Received: from nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.154) by nkgeml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.98.57.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 15:02:45 +0800
Received: from nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.154]) by nkgeml705-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.98.57.154]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 15:02:45 +0800
From: "Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <xiejingrong@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/ClUjOYTy5CmQIdDJrw
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 07:02:44 +0000
Message-ID: <fa009033516d46ea810e1a5573cc6ae2@huawei.com>
References: <DM6PR13MB3066F695F1ABFC22C52CEA3BD21D0@DM6PR13MB3066.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR13MB3066F695F1ABFC22C52CEA3BD21D0@DM6PR13MB3066.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.201.174]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_fa009033516d46ea810e1a5573cc6ae2huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/X-7v-c3gpT7EHML1KWRlyVvU-i4>
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: Mon, 02 Nov 2020 07:02:52 -0000

Hi working-group:

I support the adoption, and I have the following questions:

1. Section 4.1.4.2 and 4.2.2.2 depict the packet format with word "as needed" for inner IP Header.  Can authors please clarify in which case(s) it is needed and in which it is not.
2. Section 4.3.1 "Destination ipv6 address from the ::FFFF:127/104 range", and Section 4.1.4 "the loopback address ::1/128 for IPv6", are they different cases or same case ?

Thanks
Jingrong

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