[spring] Question for the working group
Joel Halpern <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com> Fri, 06 March 2026 17:25 UTC
Return-Path: <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.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 739AFC5BBF34 for <spring@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2026 09:25:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.797
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.797 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 rxzpVnexrswn for <spring@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2026 09:25:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailb1.tigertech.net (mailb1.tigertech.net [208.80.4.153]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EADFC5BBECF for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2026 09:25:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1772817935; bh=NI/LPIK3YFF4M3NfIj4DFI0rmQSXY786PF/Hnb8UBC8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:From; b=LHEtRzOfNx7ay0VmX3v63Ok03sZeUKIxNzcL8GkgxQvEpjpef2OeUXgG/pck+clv1 lzeoVTtorF5szzMyIDFn1ZZrEA/22SiC1cnMYRnGJ7ytflSfa26wAaHy3QR4+QcLcC aqTFwjA4lVhdN2g24hZQdo4fMem5TqV0aJmZ6Rog=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4fSCwb4r7Yz5c51l for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2026 09:25:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <0IvKY8QksHP1>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavis at b1.tigertech.net
Received: from [IPV6:2600:8806:103:9500:b02f:88cc:d1ed:f174] (unknown [IPv6:2600:8806:103:9500:b02f:88cc:d1ed:f174]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mailb1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4fSCwb1mskz5c4vQ for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2026 09:25:35 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5ee04659-206e-467a-8133-89398511d31b@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2026 12:25:34 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>
From: Joel Halpern <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID-Hash: AR5EZ6PZD6IHINW2SZ5WVRXXWZSO5YNZ
X-Message-ID-Hash: AR5EZ6PZD6IHINW2SZ5WVRXXWZSO5YNZ
X-MailFrom: jmh.direct@joelhalpern.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] Question for the working group
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG (SPRING)" <spring.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/u7DQZdiNoPS46smoI8ijVcjnOro>
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>
In regard to Segment Routing Policy as defined by RFC 9256 and the MPLS Network Action (MNA) work that is being standardized by the MPLS working group, please express an opinion as to whether: 1) An MNA Substack may never be considered a segment in the sense of RFC 9256 section 4; 2) Some MNA substacks may be considered segments in the sense of RFC 9256 Section 4 (possibly with a new segment type, possibly with an existing segment type) 3) MNA substacks are segments in the sense of RFC 9256 section 4 (possibly with a new segment type, possibly with an existing segment type) Yours, Joel (with Alvaro and Bruno)
- [spring] Question for the working group Joel Halpern
- [spring] Re: Question for the working group - reg… Joel Halpern
- [spring] Re: Question for the working group Tony Li
- [spring] Re: Question for the working group liu.yao71