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

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 30 April 2021 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.ietf@gmail.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 8EA633A2651; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 13:46:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 7N13d-X-d2FP; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 13:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102c.google.com (mail-pj1-x102c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 813D03A264F; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 13:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102c.google.com with SMTP id b14-20020a17090a6e0eb0290155c7f6a356so6185367pjk.0; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 13:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version; bh=eik6lXeGXhDA8YOUNmYqhDbfWEqegMp/zDV+DdOFgIo=; b=fdEQGhOaF1nQrYYRrW9+VspNCJv/mpVaXOwzYUMM8RL7hd5cCzb7A8jLwp5nkUvU9J aFjCyLpRM+Sfwkiovst254dYJe/FpirIjEsHocZ06NHquVztRfv4XPVLQOC4rkN1ye0k COV19WYeKGBWuuu2IiMIR7UrzLJOzFfw7wZ2Iakj1Nm75SDBVKjvftApbDnh+890QBwU 4T5IqaREwJ3oevwlaeZ7CU2pk5Y61xs0nwMA7MQL6NRglXu264Am6bsQlht+mN2EN1wq JQfZZxGjLZZWgrS9ldTrq78tGASfoSX58xQGwpXz7BSZeb8ETJKYlAi5bLgzsK/ObMlG PZIw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version; bh=eik6lXeGXhDA8YOUNmYqhDbfWEqegMp/zDV+DdOFgIo=; b=EuND9PSPV4STI5N7Gq12YzKNCPt7HrkWyQHRD+oPu6rI/8unUkZQcv/B3EohrvtiUH ZNTp0fE/NUpbHpBSAYGeDDinQO8DpAbPks2e/0jHyDZ2ert9jaBfoTECF61oRIpT+WgY 9DihCsqDB8tweMwasDEl7oB1JKrzJHvNGyqD9lujEJu7Ym5MXELyfj/fxoLslo0i7Nmk C8UmRasrZsIyUtCbhda9NsAdryasjMwkeHlptCOGdSkk37142jsRXHxi/rEkpDbhu6vm 9Qy8MlQwXM9PGWuPR9eeO3C9xT2I9FpCeytOvLhz7b6ICz0pF7xnvE6QlPx9IgXRPTkQ 01Ag==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5333PoV1W96cpk4SxCsCePjKTfAEb2UkQ9FwGDFH1vPWueWoW4+I EuTrl1NS2yhIFVHsxE0uhvg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwsedUL8L7nuLZ1P0s7JQ/qBrMYUXmUa9HogtJ6Vtrp8CMrlESIgBQlJkCFgCOLApeKE1ZiVA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ab86:b029:e9:47c1:93de with SMTP id f6-20020a170902ab86b02900e947c193demr7058311plr.69.1619815576143; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 13:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.117.0.52] ([66.129.239.12]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c129sm3085658pfb.141.2021.04.30.13.46.14 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 30 Apr 2021 13:46:15 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 13:46:00 -0700
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Boris Hassanov <bhassanov=40yahoo.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "=?utf-8?Q?spring=40ietf.org?=" <spring@ietf.org>, James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>, "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "=?utf-8?Q?spring-chairs=40ietf.org?=" <spring-chairs@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <9161861d-e372-4d62-ac8f-f5b79290d795@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <MW3PR11MB457051E36837BB99BAB05C18C1409@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <MN2PR13MB4206EF1F6E9B1C01BDDCDD76D24D9@MN2PR13MB4206.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <256008865.754508.1619557990591@mail.yahoo.com> <MW3PR11MB457051E36837BB99BAB05C18C1409@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Readdle-Message-ID: 9161861d-e372-4d62-ac8f-f5b79290d795@Spark
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="608c6c96_2ae8944a_13222"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/x5m6NKmeEltU9-6ttH30FRIKBQY>
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy
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 Apr 2021 20:46:24 -0000

Boris/Ketan,

Traditionally, we have been using Wiki to track implementations status, let’s take the same approach here?

Thanks and have a great weekend

Cheers,
Jeff
On Apr 27, 2021, 10:48 PM -0700, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <ketant=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>rg>, wrote:
> Hi Boris,
>
> Thanks for your review and feedback.
>
> Did you imply that we 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 <spring-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Boris Hassanov
> Sent: 28 April 2021 02:43
> To: spring@ietf.org; James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>
> Cc: spring-chairs@ietf.org
> 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 <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com> 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 29th 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-policy/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring