Subject: Re: [spring] Segment Routing Drafts

From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 19:05:13 +0000

These documents have been going through multiple reviews and are ready to
ask for WG adoption afais.

On 20/05/14 11:00, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Dear WG members and co-chairs,
>
>after the adoption of draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement I'd like to
>submit 
>to your consideration the following documents that has been presented
>already 
>at multiple occasions (IETF87, IETF88 and IETF89):
>
>1. 
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases
>-00
>The WG already expressed consensus and support to the document during
>IETF88 but
>its adoption to WG item has been deferred due to the work on the problem
>statement draft. 
>
>2. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-01
>This document is the base description of the SR technology and
>terminology. It 
>has updated to the latest state of the agreement on SR from all the
>co-authors 
>(vendors and operators). The draft has been simplified and focuses on the
>SR terminology and applicability to existing dataplanes. It clearly
>describes 
>how SR fits within the MPLS architecture and IPv6 architecture.
>
>3. 
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls-01
>The document describes the instantiation of SR on the MPLS dataplane. The
>draft has been updated with some illustration examples so to show how SR
>operates on top of MPLS and how MPLS dataplane is used "as is", i.e.,
>without 
>any modification.
>
>4. 
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-inter
>op-01
>This document describes the interoperability between SR and LDP in order
>to 
>ease gradual deployments and co-existence between SR and legacy LDP
>control 
>plane.
>
>5. 
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-francois-spring-segment-routing-ti-lfa-00
>This document outlines the SR solution for a Topology Independent LFA
>strategy.
>It addresses the use case and requirement described in
>draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-00
>
>As a reminder, Segment Routing protocol extensions are described in:
>. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-00
> WG Item in ISIS working group
>. 
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-04
> 
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-ospfv3-extens
>ion-01
> in OSPF working group
>. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sivabalan-pce-segment-routing-02
> in PCE working group
>
>The scope of this email is to bring these documents to your attention in
>order 
>to validate the consensus and support the authors require prior to
>request 
>their adoption as WG items to the WG-chairs.
>
>
>Thanks.
>s.
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>spring mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

---

From: Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 19:07:13 +0000

Fully agree!

Regards,
Jeff

> On May 21, 2014, at 9:05 PM, "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>