IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-03

"Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com> Fri, 30 October 2020 02:42 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 ABCF73A0AAD; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 19:42:52 -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 Uqq3mVa0ADzB; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 19:42:51 -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 C9D563A0A3B; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 19:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 243DCF9356D1222F23FF; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 02:42:49 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.61) 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; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 02:42:48 +0000
Received: from DGGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.32) by lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.61) 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 02:42:48 +0000
Received: from DGGEML529-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.249]) by DGGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::89ed:853e:30a9:2a79%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 10:42:42 +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-stamp-srpm-03
Thread-Index: Adaoaxv73543NQYjR7aQ9fY490xJIQF+wiJQ
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 02:42:41 +0000
Message-ID: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02C80551@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <DM6PR13MB3066C5FBF6F679E4F51C3D29D21D0@DM6PR13MB3066.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR13MB3066C5FBF6F679E4F51C3D29D21D0@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_C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02C80551dggeml529mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/jzufCAjLAA8utYXy-aBeVwR_8Yw>
Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-03
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 02:42:53 -0000

Hi WG,

I have read the document and think this document is useful. Support the adoption.

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-stamp-srpm-03

Dear WG:

This message starts a 3 week WG adoption call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-03, ending November 12th 2020. Please note that this document has several changes from v-02 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-stamp-srpm-02. 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 STAMP Messages, Loss Measurement Query Message Extensions, Loss Measurement Response Message Extensions, Node Address TLV Extensions, and Return Path TLV Extensions were included in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-02 and should be removed from the SPRING document.
  *   The STAMP extensions included in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-02 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-stamp-srpm-02 the result of which is the publication of the following two documents:


  *   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-stamp-srpm-03. The subject of this WG adoption call.
  *   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email