[spring] Re: [Pce] Issue raised in RTG-DIR review of draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-nrp-04
Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 11 December 2025 20:28 UTC
Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spring@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: spring@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D17A29943B68 for <spring@mail2.ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2025 12:28:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9RiCi8ASwOs6 for <spring@mail2.ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2025 12:28:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42c.google.com (mail-pf1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86B759943B52 for <spring@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2025 12:28:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-7b9c17dd591so438967b3a.3 for <spring@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2025 12:28:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1765484890; x=1766089690; darn=ietf.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=rjRe1xJscNiHJ/CgG5N3Etoz7j7zoRqXbLlzgEJS5Mg=; b=BPRjWv15NHCKSlw5R56H0kWiL+cHwGRJ8/LPmNBp/80xSjQOfa2QyYVPFKjar4tW5U WaxL7YbIRDJFgX6TY1/aXdiebu1YBMmqWcau0prpwjUXC77JgU57Vb2GUnTKD3/hm2PW sCEDD8ls+xoHBMVDvK6z2gHXxNp+14TcgerGh2KyORluVZ7/wJfcI03XUyEha1RI7VRP JbVDznkyS7AchVE9nY4KRmPT1te0qylErtN9Z4MGV/PItG0jQ3Skea+sJn5oY0b9sam3 wP21oUUkFgwEhLJklDao5NCr+01xonqoeKw8fl6GUg1LPQ5HPfHRZOyT+maCpB7Pewfq CmDw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1765484890; x=1766089690; h=to:subject:message-id:date:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from :x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=rjRe1xJscNiHJ/CgG5N3Etoz7j7zoRqXbLlzgEJS5Mg=; b=Q2AKyRpL1oVLC4hzXys6tDiP81kFbicqrdD8V9xxFZBHTE3H0Rmju5KK16VwnlYCa7 vc4Z+XisO1rh7MPmHg/b5ClqITdRUqNSoVEaEjZqIzL0lxc43T2bHqsQBvjFKgbFIy9N CsiLBUu7cfVG/AuQtrHfkW6yvD23tUZR6LiXuWJB19SZxc44L5SqO/ZsqSiFeEWuEdR9 /hPSr0AJo+IE4nsc/+WzxiXIXNXamPLERIEGZMAMNY3JfJr8WktzshkRpK12DO8zQiDV 83qH3Ks4sQTZ2YZesA2oSdm/vOGcUYyfbR+V0Jq9Cw88T3AApJhMDpD7USUEBJe2WaX9 54Ww==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVWAdZR++TVylb8TahA3GSCQIiTN8+XyeOoSSoM9MmksJdL0V3DuPpeJ0rRnQ8fHLKjI0kodyE=@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy7LNcOx8h7uxH9UxB7bBubLDi97uafJkm4b7mHryt9Hr06OSYC s0zU9MUZ90B9sHFSMBpnA2ukfSw7bF1Y6gRdv8LgEn6qKI2TOH1ZQP178wC2IInsKIVDiKhdPdv ix0uLXXPk20RhPgkGYFHVNPmCOZ9K8JXHMg==
X-Gm-Gg: AY/fxX4blBSBOqzP+bSB9ELB+q9lvPIlzhpjmz1XrHjOzpJOVwMtNkk4HsF3UFQ8+Ck w9BSlzbRLVis5ikQHOrS3qJWCBHRceN41qZHxwSufLaMOTof7F/jE3jJHT1BmAAWptoOygSzt3F J6ifnOMwny/8lqVvM31AzLBrfG5mzOggQj1IHMRUZOE519V0SkdO7BErlwM+zk6OY3aP/IHp2A9 870stL4eu6JFuF0AGfa0Gv0qTrvjUzktGAU/R6fXyNDF8O1SKuNDzZRlPzghCG84jBEUeF5cJUh x5f80gRX5ndJSSAIOEXrtIVS4n09
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEOkMgZHUFSXgHKQnsPXaj8y1knhpdGePFSzAsF2geRPY6eLBWaU648KHeAVfn3c84GJFmEsdpDl8KoE/WZDh4=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:701a:c945:b0:11b:9386:8271 with SMTP id a92af1059eb24-11f296ecb47mr4497312c88.46.1765484890414; Thu, 11 Dec 2025 12:28:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Thu, 11 Dec 2025 20:28:09 +0000
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Thu, 11 Dec 2025 20:28:09 +0000
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM8PR08MB7413FA1439C19B4076F6D759B3A1A@DM8PR08MB7413.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DM8PR08MB7413FA1439C19B4076F6D759B3A1A@DM8PR08MB7413.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2025 20:28:09 +0000
X-Gm-Features: AQt7F2oRLqPJlHVL5_WLpszrclIX5GOyhSmcy_ei_1Hethp8YQb4PSx8KBTRgt8
Message-ID: <CAMMESsyXp0NwkD2Vj3UcJj1mzSKM7ubLh9VPQfpDPXVhDBXAUQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, Path Computation Element Discussion List <pce@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>, SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bfe0fc0645b2fb6f"
Message-ID-Hash: DBKWKDYCOSP72EXH4XH225CQD7WORR5N
X-Message-ID-Hash: DBKWKDYCOSP72EXH4XH225CQD7WORR5N
X-MailFrom: aretana.ietf@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-spring.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [spring] Re: [Pce] Issue raised in RTG-DIR review of draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-nrp-04
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG (SPRING)" <spring.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/tsCI58iIvBjCXu7aCiqBZgBDN8o>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:spring-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:spring-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:spring-leave@ietf.org>
On December 10, 2025 at 8:47:22 PM, Susan Hares wrote: Sue: Hi! Replying only about the adoption process: ... > 1) draft-jiang-spring-sr-policy-nrp-04 is on adoption queue (at the bottom). > when will Spring review the validity of section 3? The queue is roughly ordered by when the adoption request was received, not by the order in which the call will happen. In this case, I hope to call for adoption in January. The second part of your question is different than just adoption. While I expect the WG to review the documents when adopted, I will ask the authors of draft-jiang-spring-sr-policy-nrp to review your analysis. Others in the WG have also been involved in the different WGs and can contribute. Thanks! Alvaro.
- [spring] Issue raised in RTG-DIR review of draft-… Susan Hares
- [spring] Re: [Pce] Issue raised in RTG-DIR review… Alvaro Retana
- [spring] Re: Issue raised in RTG-DIR review of dr… Susan Hares
- [spring] Re: [Idr] Re: Issue raised in RTG-DIR re… Susan Hares