Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy

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

Hi Joel,

Authors, can you clarify whether it would be accurate for Jim to report "there have been implementations for many years, and multiple interoperability tests" ?

KT> Yes

Thanks,
Ketan

-----Original Message-----
From: Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 30 April 2021 22:27
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[e-mail]>; Boris Hassanov <bhassanov=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; James Guichard <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy

It would seem very strange to add an implementation section at WGLC, since by IETF policy they are removed before RFC publication.  (For context, the driving reason for removal is that they inherently become
obsolete.)

It is reasonable to include comments on implementation in the shepherd writeup.  That has to be short.  Authors, can you clarify whether it would be accurate for Jim to report "there have been implementations for many years, and multiple interoperability tests" ?

Thank you,
Joel

On 4/30/2021 12:12 PM, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote:
> Hi Boris,
> 
> I will leave it the chair/shepherd guidance on this one.
> 
> EANTC has been running multi-vendor interop for Segment Routing that 
> covers this document along with signalling protocols like PCEP and 
> BGP-SRTE every year since at least 2016. It includes various 
> controller and router products. Their results are published in 
> whitepapers which might perhaps provide at least some of the information that you are looking.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ketan
> 
> *From:*Boris Hassanov <bhassanov=[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* 30 April 2021 20:49
> *To:* [e-mail]; James Guichard 
> <[e-mail]>; Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) 
> <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] WGLC for 
> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy
> 
> Hi Ketan,
> 
> Yes, I meant an implementation status section in the draft.
> 
> The either one way, which will be easier to accomplish. We need to fix 
> such status somewhere, IMO.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> SY,
> 
> Boris
> 
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021, 8:48:06 AM GMT+3, Ketan Talaulikar
> (ketant) <ketant=[e-mail]
> <mailto:ketant=[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> Hi Boris,
> 
> Thanks for your review and feedback.
> 
> Did you imply that we add an add an implementation status section in 
> the draft?  Or are you suggesting that the chairs poll for 
> implementation and deployment status? I ask because the Implementation 
> Status section is generally removed before publication as RFC.
> 
> Regarding implementation, I am aware of support for this draft in 
> Cisco’s Routing products for many years now with multiple deployments. 
> I am also aware of other vendor support & operator deployment. 
> However, would request other WG members to respond/confirm.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ketan
> 
> *From:*spring <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> *On Behalf Of *Boris Hassanov
> *Sent:* 28 April 2021 02:43
> *To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; James Guichard 
> <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Cc:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] WGLC for 
> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy
> 
> Hi James and all,
> 
> I read the draft and strongly support its publication as WG document. 
> Very detailed, helpful and interesting document.
> 
> I would only add implementation status part because currently it is 
> not easy to get such info about implementation details.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> SY,
> 
> Boris
> 
> On Thursday, April 15, 2021, 9:57:11 PM GMT+3, James Guichard 
> <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> wrote:
> 
> Dear WG:
> 
> This email starts a 2 week Working Group Last Call for 
> draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy [1].
> 
> Please read this document if you haven’t read the most recent version 
> and send your comments to the SPRING WG list no later than April 29^th 
> 2021.
> 
> If you are raising a point which you expect will be specifically 
> debated on the mailing list, consider using a specific email/thread for this point.
> 
> Lastly, if you are an author or contributors for this document please 
> response to the IPR call in the previous email thread.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Jim, Joel & Bruno
> 
> [1]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-pol
> icy/ 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-po
> licy/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>
>