From nobody Tue Sep 2 08:12:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5D071A876E; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 08:12:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 1UcT_DdvdJWp; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 08:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2lp0242.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.242]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9DC41A701F; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 08:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DM2PR05MB304.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.103.24) by DM2PR05MB734.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.178.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1019.16; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:12:20 +0000 Received: from DM2PR05MB303.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.103.15) by DM2PR05MB304.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.103.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1019.16; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:12:19 +0000 Received: from DM2PR05MB303.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.103.15]) by DM2PR05MB303.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.103.15]) with mapi id 15.00.1019.015; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:12:19 +0000 From: Chris Bowers To: "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with MPLS dataplane Thread-Index: Ac/Gv/F9w1x680bbTQ+xOgAabVdPGQ== Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:12:18 +0000 Message-ID: <13e9516b591b49948e5ec155c4b681b4@DM2PR05MB303.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [66.129.239.10] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;UriScan:; x-forefront-prvs: 0322B4EDE1 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(189002)(199003)(164054003)(31966008)(74662001)(74502001)(15202345003)(108616004)(4396001)(85306004)(19580395003)(33646002)(50986999)(54356999)(99396002)(83322001)(46102001)(110136001)(21056001)(64706001)(85852003)(101416001)(83072002)(90102001)(79102001)(80022001)(15975445006)(2501002)(66066001)(2656002)(86362001)(81542001)(105586002)(81342001)(87936001)(76576001)(20776003)(2351001)(77982001)(229853001)(107046002)(74316001)(95666004)(99286002)(76482001)(92566001)(106356001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:DM2PR05MB304; H:DM2PR05MB303.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_13e9516b591b49948e5ec155c4b681b4DM2PR05MB303namprd05pro_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:; X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/-NoBngSR4UESDngoNRIOTAlDodE Cc: "isis-wg@ietf.org" Subject: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with MPLS dataplane X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:12:26 -0000 --_000_13e9516b591b49948e5ec155c4b681b4DM2PR05MB303namprd05pro_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Has there been any discussion about how to carry both IPv6 and IPv4 packets= with SPRING/SR MPLS labels? From what I can tell, neither draft-filsfils-= spring-segment-routing-04 nor draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls-03= addresses this scenario. In the context of shortest-path forwarding using Node-SID labels, there wou= ld seem to be two main approaches to consider. One could distinguish betwe= en IPv6 and IPv4 packets by using two different Node-SID labels for the sam= e node. Or one could use IPv6 and/or IPv4 Explicit Null labels pushed on t= he bottom of the label stack by the SR ingress router. Do the authors of these drafts or other working group participants have an = opinion on the best way to address this scenario? Thanks, Chris --_000_13e9516b591b49948e5ec155c4b681b4DM2PR05MB303namprd05pro_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Has there been any discussion about how to carry both IPv6 and IPv4 pa= ckets with SPRING/SR MPLS labels?  From what I can tell, neither draft= -filsfils-spring-segment-routing-04 nor draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routi= ng-mpls-03 addresses this scenario.
 
In the context of shortest-path forwarding using Node-SID labels, ther= e would seem to be two main approaches to consider.  One could disting= uish between IPv6 and IPv4 packets by using two different Node-SID labels f= or the same node.  Or one could use IPv6 and/or IPv4 Explicit Null labels pushed on the bottom of the label stack by= the SR ingress router.
 
Do the authors of these drafts or other working group participants hav= e an opinion on the best way to address this scenario?
 
Thanks,
Chris
 
 
 
 --_000_13e9516b591b49948e5ec155c4b681b4DM2PR05MB303namprd05pro_-- From nobody Tue Sep 2 08:21:14 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FDA41A0642; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 08:21:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.169 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 z_wCj6EB1PoE; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 08:21:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39D001A0424; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 08:21:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1417; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409671268; x=1410880868; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=oXjrXo5fq1YAZ4tqcu+idrhxcak41V9ViQuI/CLotnM=; b=URfarWFRf80X0tvdapOx5wxEOxDXJEmG/rQC98iA91kJgnB/wLKzW8j4 GKNT/Et7VOWGyPsJn/O81ifDm7Fo06b1LCaQzvpR670mL5+ilBKM8Z8tD k3GFe9Knt5VVMu6gSp+m4JpjQ338h51VoFz+tFVVdZ5uENe1+Ng5EGRoL U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiUFAETfBVStJA2B/2dsb2JhbABagw1TVwTIDwqGeVMBgRMWd4QDAQEBAwEBAQE3NAsFCwIBCA4KHhAnCyUBAQQOBYg6CA27SAETBI8aMweDL4EdBZExiyuVHoNhbIFIgQcBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,449,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="74249362" Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Sep 2014 15:21:02 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com [173.37.183.79]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s82FL2X5032272 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:21:02 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.236]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([173.37.183.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:21:02 -0500 From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" To: Chris Bowers Thread-Topic: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with MPLS dataplane Thread-Index: Ac/Gv/F9w1x680bbTQ+xOgAabVdPGQAK3cGA Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:21:01 +0000 Message-ID: <5FF3A838-09FF-47DA-B516-21F7E3733E22@cisco.com> References: <13e9516b591b49948e5ec155c4b681b4@DM2PR05MB303.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> In-Reply-To: <13e9516b591b49948e5ec155c4b681b4@DM2PR05MB303.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.196.123] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4FAAADED90851F499B360BFA3EE2F1E1@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/07hDE0EvYsbt0RzC5ie7ZOQEZ5M Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , "isis-wg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with MPLS dataplane X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:21:10 -0000 Hi Chris, On Sep 2, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Chris Bowers wrote: > Has there been any discussion about how to carry both IPv6 and IPv4 packe= ts with SPRING/SR MPLS labels? From what I can tell, neither draft-filsfil= s-spring-segment-routing-04 nor draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls-= 03 addresses this scenario. sid's are assigned to ip addresses (e.g. intf addresses). A node having two= loopbacks (v4/v6) will have a sid for the ipv4 address and another one for= the ipv6. Then you compute your spt's or explicit paths based on your af-topology and= you pick the right sid's stack. =20 > In the context of shortest-path forwarding using Node-SID labels, there w= ould seem to be two main approaches to consider. One could distinguish bet= ween IPv6 and IPv4 packets by using two different Node-SID labels for the s= ame node. correct. this is same as above: one sid per address (one for v4 and one for= v6). s. > Or one could use IPv6 and/or IPv4 Explicit Null labels pushed on the bot= tom of the label stack by the SR ingress router. > =20 > Do the authors of these drafts or other working group participants have a= n opinion on the best way to address this scenario? > =20 > Thanks, > Chris > =20 > =20 > =20 > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring From nobody Tue Sep 2 09:17:09 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 184F21A0700; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 09:17:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 I5nnSwbZd3wy; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 09:17:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1lp0141.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A33CA1A06EE; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 09:17:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DM2PR05MB303.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.103.15) by DM2PR05MB302.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.103.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1015.19; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 16:17:02 +0000 Received: from DM2PR05MB303.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.103.15]) by DM2PR05MB303.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.103.15]) with mapi id 15.00.1019.015; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 16:17:02 +0000 From: Chris Bowers To: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" Thread-Topic: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with MPLS dataplane Thread-Index: AQHPxsGIbHxG5LVgDE+GjGvmzRmylpvt/13w Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 16:17:01 +0000 Message-ID: <153cb0838cff4c8b95afb611689f8e06@DM2PR05MB303.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <13e9516b591b49948e5ec155c4b681b4@DM2PR05MB303.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <5FF3A838-09FF-47DA-B516-21F7E3733E22@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <5FF3A838-09FF-47DA-B516-21F7E3733E22@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [66.129.239.10] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:; x-forefront-prvs: 0322B4EDE1 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(979002)(6009001)(24454002)(377454003)(199003)(51704005)(164054003)(189002)(13464003)(4396001)(74662001)(83072002)(101416001)(90102001)(64706001)(83322001)(80022001)(79102001)(87936001)(74502001)(77982001)(81542001)(85306004)(85852003)(19580405001)(81342001)(20776003)(46102001)(15975445006)(76482001)(2656002)(21056001)(86362001)(33646002)(99396002)(50986999)(95666004)(54356999)(76176999)(92566001)(110136001)(19580395003)(99286002)(106116001)(31966008)(108616004)(66066001)(76576001)(105586002)(106356001)(74316001)(107046002)(24736002)(969003)(989001)(999001)(1009001)(1019001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:DM2PR05MB302; H:DM2PR05MB303.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:ovrnspm; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/9d-dKgit58-KYKdXTe00YeUitjk Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , "isis-wg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with MPLS dataplane X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:17:07 -0000 Stefano, Thanks. Is there a mechanism to advertise different label blocks for v4 an= d v6 and have a single unique index value associated with the node? This w= ould still result in different label values being used for v4 and v6 packet= s destined for the same node, but the network operator only has to assign a= single unique index value to each node. Chris -----Original Message----- From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprevidi@cisco.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 10:21 AM To: Chris Bowers Cc: spring@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with M= PLS dataplane Hi Chris, On Sep 2, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Chris Bowers wrote: > Has there been any discussion about how to carry both IPv6 and IPv4 packe= ts with SPRING/SR MPLS labels? From what I can tell, neither draft-filsfil= s-spring-segment-routing-04 nor draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls-= 03 addresses this scenario. sid's are assigned to ip addresses (e.g. intf addresses). A node having two= loopbacks (v4/v6) will have a sid for the ipv4 address and another one for= the ipv6. Then you compute your spt's or explicit paths based on your af-topology and= you pick the right sid's stack. =20 > In the context of shortest-path forwarding using Node-SID labels, there w= ould seem to be two main approaches to consider. One could distinguish bet= ween IPv6 and IPv4 packets by using two different Node-SID labels for the s= ame node. correct. this is same as above: one sid per address (one for v4 and one for= v6). s. > Or one could use IPv6 and/or IPv4 Explicit Null labels pushed on the bot= tom of the label stack by the SR ingress router. > =20 > Do the authors of these drafts or other working group participants have a= n opinion on the best way to address this scenario? > =20 > Thanks, > Chris > =20 > =20 > =20 > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring From nobody Tue Sep 2 09:39:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD4B41A0235; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 09:39:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.169 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 Eo_JKDhRmJYu; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 09:39:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FBF11A011D; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 09:39:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2546; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409675967; x=1410885567; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=BRytTP+uwRhbn2bztwyPgS+3/e+YRrC4/py/cBwKSvI=; b=B4uzar6YUFBsjPEFVomVMvQo5Z1uc8AHbG4vwTv81UFkP2QbFsQW3tK2 hbiNAVYkfw1YWbzUiFjSxlUs4wVizZqfWcIfWCNwpNxP1DYtQ6hhGjG4L IuZdRnHsq6XlBPuDzOGImVrixhm7uNY6rFKLRj69hRWZCGPKMpmJFJbjH g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiYFAPjxBVStJA2N/2dsb2JhbABagw1TVwTIGAqGeVMBgRMWd4QDAQEBAwEBAQE3NAsFBwQCAQgOAwQBAQEeCQcnCxQJCAEBBA4FiDoIDbtsARMEjxozBwaDKYEdBZExiyuVHoNhbIFIgQcBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,450,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="74280167" Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Sep 2014 16:39:26 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com [173.36.12.77]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s82GdQgX010296 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 2 Sep 2014 16:39:26 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.236]) by xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com ([173.36.12.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 11:39:26 -0500 From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" To: Chris Bowers Thread-Topic: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with MPLS dataplane Thread-Index: Ac/Gv/F9w1x680bbTQ+xOgAabVdPGQAK3cGAAAH0+oAAAMf5gA== Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 16:39:26 +0000 Message-ID: <4A4E21C4-B261-4327-B3C5-AD74D7843B23@cisco.com> References: <13e9516b591b49948e5ec155c4b681b4@DM2PR05MB303.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <5FF3A838-09FF-47DA-B516-21F7E3733E22@cisco.com> <153cb0838cff4c8b95afb611689f8e06@DM2PR05MB303.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> In-Reply-To: <153cb0838cff4c8b95afb611689f8e06@DM2PR05MB303.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.173.109] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3B83152AFF0B9C4BA026F3BDF1373913@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/_rHHOPybmKcIlc1xjmUrXSqDsUw Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , "isis-wg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with MPLS dataplane X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:39:29 -0000 On Sep 2, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Chris Bowers wrote: > Stefano, >=20 > Thanks. Is there a mechanism to advertise different label blocks for v4 = and v6 and have a single unique index value associated with the node? there's a mechanism that allows you to advertise multiple label blocks and = the index is used across all of them (see isis/ospf sr extensions drafts). = Not sure if you need to explicitly advertise the af of the label block know= ing that a sid corresponds to a prefix which implies its af. s. > This would still result in different label values being used for v4 and = v6 packets destined for the same node, but the network operator only has to= assign a single unique index value to each node. >=20 > Chris >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprevidi@cisco.com]=20 > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 10:21 AM > To: Chris Bowers > Cc: spring@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with= MPLS dataplane >=20 > Hi Chris, >=20 > On Sep 2, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Chris Bowers wrote: >> Has there been any discussion about how to carry both IPv6 and IPv4 pack= ets with SPRING/SR MPLS labels? From what I can tell, neither draft-filsfi= ls-spring-segment-routing-04 nor draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls= -03 addresses this scenario. >=20 >=20 > sid's are assigned to ip addresses (e.g. intf addresses). A node having t= wo loopbacks (v4/v6) will have a sid for the ipv4 address and another one f= or the ipv6. >=20 > Then you compute your spt's or explicit paths based on your af-topology a= nd you pick the right sid's stack. >=20 >=20 >> In the context of shortest-path forwarding using Node-SID labels, there = would seem to be two main approaches to consider. One could distinguish be= tween IPv6 and IPv4 packets by using two different Node-SID labels for the = same node. >=20 >=20 > correct. this is same as above: one sid per address (one for v4 and one f= or v6). >=20 > s. >=20 >=20 >> Or one could use IPv6 and/or IPv4 Explicit Null labels pushed on the bot= tom of the label stack by the SR ingress router. >>=20 >> Do the authors of these drafts or other working group participants have = an opinion on the best way to address this scenario? >>=20 >> Thanks, >> Chris >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> spring mailing list >> spring@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >=20 From nobody Tue Sep 2 09:51:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19FED1A0712; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 09:51:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham 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 7WNwEJR_5kI8; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 09:51:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C7D51A06C0; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 09:51:05 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c618062d-f79206d0000014d2-dc-5405a05b9ce3 Received: from EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.87]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E1.A1.05330.B50A5045; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:47:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:50:55 -0400 From: Gregory Mirsky To: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" , Chris Bowers Thread-Topic: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with MPLS dataplane Thread-Index: AQHPxsyB149dWSO+d02ubzttPX0IapvuDYSw Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 16:50:54 +0000 Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B82992B@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> References: <13e9516b591b49948e5ec155c4b681b4@DM2PR05MB303.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <5FF3A838-09FF-47DA-B516-21F7E3733E22@cisco.com> <153cb0838cff4c8b95afb611689f8e06@DM2PR05MB303.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <4A4E21C4-B261-4327-B3C5-AD74D7843B23@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4A4E21C4-B261-4327-B3C5-AD74D7843B23@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.12] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B82992Beusaamb103erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupgkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLonXDd6AWuIwdkP+hY/1rtaHD30ntVi /e5HTBbHL/xmdGDxmPJ7I6vHkiU/mTyuN11lD2CO4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4Mpo2PCKveCIa0XH xhnMDYwnrLoYOTkkBEwk/nU9ZoewxSQu3FvP1sXIxSEkcJRRYvWUqUwQzjJGie9vWhlBqtgE jCRebOwB6xARiJb4/+QAWJxZwE9iwaKnYHFhgSiJo8+fMMPUnO79yAhhG0kcf9MOFmcRUJFY 2/yTFcTmFfCV2NUMs6ydSWLFlqtMIAlOAVuJBW/usoHYjEDnfT+1hglimbjErSfzmSDOFpBY suc8M4QtKvHy8T9WCFtJYs7ra8wQ9fkSS3f+YIdYJihxcuYTlgmMorOQjJqFpGwWkjKIuI7E gt2f2CBsbYllC18zw9hnDjxmQhZfwMi+ipGjtDi1LDfdyGATIzDqjkmw6e5g3PPS8hCjAAej Eg+vwhaWECHWxLLiytxDjNIcLErivLNq5wULCaQnlqRmp6YWpBbFF5XmpBYfYmTi4JRqYKzV uTP/pYifoffjvbcZNucf+R8o2FfkG1Rz1PrRw3ZvV7Xe040TGVPerllyTLHmfEv2z/yZOxz3 HP6kd5W/5Y74tjjORh61Rhlzplc6By4at6hseOnpLHfqc5LWYoN80Z8qEkv3bHBhnjj7SCGv UdwGjbC5Z1m6vBW+twUxMk+JTjaKX5E0TYmlOCPRUIu5qDgRANtiw3ubAgAA Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/s9OGkV6sbg8nl0seUuvIXO5e38k Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , "isis-wg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with MPLS dataplane X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:51:13 -0000 --_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B82992Beusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, another method been used to differentiate IPv4 and IPv6 payload over MPLS L= SP by LERs: * IPv4 Explicit Null label for IPv4 payload; * IPv6 Explicit Null label for IPv6 payload. Regards, Greg -----Original Message----- From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Previdi = (sprevidi) Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 9:39 AM To: Chris Bowers Cc: spring@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with M= PLS dataplane On Sep 2, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Chris Bowers wrote: > Stefano, > > Thanks. Is there a mechanism to advertise different label blocks for v4 = and v6 and have a single unique index value associated with the node? there's a mechanism that allows you to advertise multiple label blocks and = the index is used across all of them (see isis/ospf sr extensions drafts). = Not sure if you need to explicitly advertise the af of the label block know= ing that a sid corresponds to a prefix which implies its af. s. > This would still result in different label values being used for v4 and = v6 packets destined for the same node, but the network operator only has to= assign a single unique index value to each node. > > Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprevidi@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 10:21 AM > To: Chris Bowers > Cc: spring@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with= MPLS dataplane > > Hi Chris, > > On Sep 2, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Chris Bowers wrote: >> Has there been any discussion about how to carry both IPv6 and IPv4 pack= ets with SPRING/SR MPLS labels? From what I can tell, neither draft-filsfi= ls-spring-segment-routing-04 nor draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls= -03 addresses this scenario. > > > sid's are assigned to ip addresses (e.g. intf addresses). A node having t= wo loopbacks (v4/v6) will have a sid for the ipv4 address and another one f= or the ipv6. > > Then you compute your spt's or explicit paths based on your af-topology a= nd you pick the right sid's stack. > > >> In the context of shortest-path forwarding using Node-SID labels, there = would seem to be two main approaches to consider. One could distinguish be= tween IPv6 and IPv4 packets by using two different Node-SID labels for the = same node. > > > correct. this is same as above: one sid per address (one for v4 and one f= or v6). > > s. > > >> Or one could use IPv6 and/or IPv4 Explicit Null labels pushed on the bot= tom of the label stack by the SR ingress router. >> >> Do the authors of these drafts or other working group participants have = an opinion on the best way to address this scenario? >> >> Thanks, >> Chris >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 --_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B82992Beusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
another method been used to differentiate IPv4 and IPv6 payload over M= PLS LSP by LERs:
  • IPv4 Explicit Null label for IPv4 payload;
  • IPv6 Explicit Null l= abel for IPv6 payload.
 
        Regards,
           &nbs= p;    Greg
 
-----Original Message-----
From: spring [mailto:spring-boun= ces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 9:39 AM
To: Chris Bowers
Cc: spring@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with M= PLS dataplane
 
On Sep 2, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Chris Bowers wrote:
> Stefano,
>
> Thanks.  Is there a mechanism to advertise different label b= locks for v4 and v6 and have a single unique index value associated with th= e node?
 
 
there's a mechanism that allows you to advertise multiple label blocks= and the index is used across all of them (see isis/ospf sr extensions draf= ts). Not sure if you need to explicitly advertise the af of the label block= knowing that a sid corresponds to a prefix which implies its af.
 
s.
 
 
 
>  This would still result in different label values being use= d for v4 and v6 packets destined for the same node, but the network operato= r only has to assign a single unique index value to each node.
>
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprevidi@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 10:21 AM
> To: Chris Bowers
> Subject: Re: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING= /SR with MPLS dataplane
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Chris Bowers wrote:
>> Has there been any discussion about how to carry both IPv6 an= d IPv4 packets with SPRING/SR MPLS labels?  From what I can tell, neit= her draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-04 nor draft-filsfils-spring-segm= ent-routing-mpls-03 addresses this scenario.
>
>
> sid's are assigned to ip addresses (e.g. intf addresses). A node = having two loopbacks (v4/v6) will have a sid for the ipv4 address and anoth= er one for the ipv6.
>
> Then you compute your spt's or explicit paths based on your af-to= pology and you pick the right sid's stack.
>
>
>> In the context of shortest-path forwarding using Node-SID lab= els, there would seem to be two main approaches to consider.  One coul= d distinguish between IPv6 and IPv4 packets by using two different Node-SID= labels for the same node.
>
>
> correct. this is same as above: one sid per address (one for v4 a= nd one for v6).
>
> s.
>
>
>> Or one could use IPv6 and/or IPv4 Explicit Null labels pushed= on the bottom of the label stack by the SR ingress router.
>>
>> Do the authors of these drafts or other working group partici= pants have an opinion on the best way to address this scenario?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> spring mailing list
>
 
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
 
 --_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B82992Beusaamb103erics_-- From nobody Tue Sep 2 15:55:49 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 041971A88FA; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:55:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 YFIFXu6jAIqh; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:55:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1blp0187.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.187]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4F2A1A88CD; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:55:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.23.27) by BLUPR05MB289.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.23.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1015.19; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:55:40 +0000 Received: from BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.23.27]) by BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.23.27]) with mapi id 15.00.1019.015; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:55:40 +0000 From: Chris Bowers To: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" Thread-Topic: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with MPLS dataplane Thread-Index: Ac/HAHNIi5mjAeiDRUuQj4rS83oDug== Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 22:55:40 +0000 Message-ID: <28acb42d55754debaac4ede15e2f6cfa@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [66.129.239.10] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:; x-forefront-prvs: 0322B4EDE1 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(24454002)(377454003)(51704005)(189002)(13464003)(164054003)(199003)(19580405001)(20776003)(19580395003)(92566001)(101416001)(46102001)(90102001)(76576001)(83322001)(2656002)(86362001)(15975445006)(33646002)(107046002)(64706001)(79102001)(74316001)(50986999)(54356999)(21056001)(99396002)(81542001)(74502001)(105586002)(83072002)(85852003)(95666004)(85306004)(80022001)(108616004)(4396001)(99286002)(74662001)(31966008)(106356001)(66066001)(76482001)(87936001)(110136001)(77982001)(81342001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR05MB289; H:BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/sfwe460nkMOikg6DM7SxkNHN-Lo Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , "isis-wg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with MPLS dataplane X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 22:55:45 -0000 Stefano, Thanks. I have a similar question regarding node-SID index values for diff= erent algorithms. Does each node need to advertise a unique index value fo= r each algorithm? For example, in a network supporting 3 algorithms, woul= d each node need to be assigned 3 unique index values for IPv4 forwarding? I was hoping to be able to assign a single unique index value to each node,= and then have each node advertise a different label block for each algorit= hm. This would achieve the same result as assigning a unique index value f= or each node for each algorithm, and it would simplify network operations. = The current versions of the ISIS and OSPF SR extensions don't appear to su= pport advertising a different label block for each algorithm, but I wanted = to make sure I'm not misreading the drafts. Thanks, Chris -----Original Message----- From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprevidi@cisco.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 11:39 AM To: Chris Bowers Cc: spring@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with M= PLS dataplane On Sep 2, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Chris Bowers wrote: > Stefano, >=20 > Thanks. Is there a mechanism to advertise different label blocks for v4 = and v6 and have a single unique index value associated with the node? there's a mechanism that allows you to advertise multiple label blocks and = the index is used across all of them (see isis/ospf sr extensions drafts). = Not sure if you need to explicitly advertise the af of the label block know= ing that a sid corresponds to a prefix which implies its af. s. > This would still result in different label values being used for v4 and = v6 packets destined for the same node, but the network operator only has to= assign a single unique index value to each node. >=20 > Chris >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprevidi@cisco.com]=20 > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 10:21 AM > To: Chris Bowers > Cc: spring@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with= MPLS dataplane >=20 > Hi Chris, >=20 > On Sep 2, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Chris Bowers wrote: >> Has there been any discussion about how to carry both IPv6 and IPv4 pack= ets with SPRING/SR MPLS labels? From what I can tell, neither draft-filsfi= ls-spring-segment-routing-04 nor draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls= -03 addresses this scenario. >=20 >=20 > sid's are assigned to ip addresses (e.g. intf addresses). A node having t= wo loopbacks (v4/v6) will have a sid for the ipv4 address and another one f= or the ipv6. >=20 > Then you compute your spt's or explicit paths based on your af-topology a= nd you pick the right sid's stack. >=20 >=20 >> In the context of shortest-path forwarding using Node-SID labels, there = would seem to be two main approaches to consider. One could distinguish be= tween IPv6 and IPv4 packets by using two different Node-SID labels for the = same node. >=20 >=20 > correct. this is same as above: one sid per address (one for v4 and one f= or v6). >=20 > s. >=20 >=20 >> Or one could use IPv6 and/or IPv4 Explicit Null labels pushed on the bot= tom of the label stack by the SR ingress router. >>=20 >> Do the authors of these drafts or other working group participants have = an opinion on the best way to address this scenario? >>=20 >> Thanks, >> Chris >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> spring mailing list >> spring@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >=20 From nobody Wed Sep 3 00:45:27 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D94161A007A; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 00:45:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.169 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 zCNvPwcWDjS0; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 00:45:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0991D1A0046; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 00:45:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4084; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409730322; x=1410939922; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=3iysoY0X/lnGDhY0GE+vYt2/uMIbWTaTCM54FqI3bYg=; b=EveD7ZEK30fLMdUySxg76pdnkntyoQkNU4Mc6hW7jrQgXULrpuJKytAN hhMbfPDs0XWko30idgPBpsCHAfb34Kd/u+DstCHmNJKSVRdRTkt8svxn8 4RX+pZnTmr4FdaQznOpChoxGVJMr5DZqzmabFnjZXxSFdZ/DFqcMnF37F 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag0FAMrGBlStJA2H/2dsb2JhbABagw1TVwTIMwqGeVMBgQ0Wd4QDAQEBAwEBAQE3NAsFBwQCAQgOAwQBAQEeCQcnCxQJCAEBBA4FiDoIDb1AARMEjxozBwaDKYEdBZExiyuVHoNhbIFIgQcBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,455,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="352175574" Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Sep 2014 07:45:06 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s837j4hd031432 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 3 Sep 2014 07:45:04 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.236]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 02:45:04 -0500 From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" To: Chris Bowers Thread-Topic: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with MPLS dataplane Thread-Index: Ac/HAHNIi5mjAeiDRUuQj4rS83oDugAdGxkA Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 07:45:03 +0000 Message-ID: <7B3B15DE-FB21-4384-837A-9AD41EA8500A@cisco.com> References: <28acb42d55754debaac4ede15e2f6cfa@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> In-Reply-To: <28acb42d55754debaac4ede15e2f6cfa@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.210.227] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/Xs_RN2_DuTqfpQOerp4NTkWgl2w Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , "isis-wg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with MPLS dataplane X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 07:45:23 -0000 On Sep 3, 2014, at 12:55 AM, Chris Bowers wrote: > Stefano, >=20 > Thanks. I have a similar question regarding node-SID index values for di= fferent algorithms. Does each node need to advertise a unique index value = for each algorithm? For example, in a network supporting 3 algorithms, wo= uld each node need to be assigned 3 unique index values for IPv4 forwarding= ? yes. > I was hoping to be able to assign a single unique index value to each nod= e, and then have each node advertise a different label block for each algor= ithm. This would achieve the same result as assigning a unique index value= for each node for each algorithm, and it would simplify network operations= . The current versions of the ISIS and OSPF SR extensions don't appear to = support advertising a different label block for each algorithm, but I wante= d to make sure I'm not misreading the drafts. that's correct. Note that we don't really have documented a use case for th= e algorithm field. Yet another way to do multi-topology... in case we don't= have enough of them already... s. >=20 > Thanks, > Chris >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprevidi@cisco.com]=20 > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 11:39 AM > To: Chris Bowers > Cc: spring@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with= MPLS dataplane >=20 > On Sep 2, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Chris Bowers wrote: >> Stefano, >>=20 >> Thanks. Is there a mechanism to advertise different label blocks for v4= and v6 and have a single unique index value associated with the node? >=20 >=20 > there's a mechanism that allows you to advertise multiple label blocks an= d the index is used across all of them (see isis/ospf sr extensions drafts)= . Not sure if you need to explicitly advertise the af of the label block kn= owing that a sid corresponds to a prefix which implies its af. >=20 > s. >=20 >=20 >=20 >> This would still result in different label values being used for v4 and = v6 packets destined for the same node, but the network operator only has to= assign a single unique index value to each node. >>=20 >> Chris >>=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprevidi@cisco.com]=20 >> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 10:21 AM >> To: Chris Bowers >> Cc: spring@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR wit= h MPLS dataplane >>=20 >> Hi Chris, >>=20 >> On Sep 2, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Chris Bowers wrote: >>> Has there been any discussion about how to carry both IPv6 and IPv4 pac= kets with SPRING/SR MPLS labels? From what I can tell, neither draft-filsf= ils-spring-segment-routing-04 nor draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpl= s-03 addresses this scenario. >>=20 >>=20 >> sid's are assigned to ip addresses (e.g. intf addresses). A node having = two loopbacks (v4/v6) will have a sid for the ipv4 address and another one = for the ipv6. >>=20 >> Then you compute your spt's or explicit paths based on your af-topology = and you pick the right sid's stack. >>=20 >>=20 >>> In the context of shortest-path forwarding using Node-SID labels, there= would seem to be two main approaches to consider. One could distinguish b= etween IPv6 and IPv4 packets by using two different Node-SID labels for the= same node. >>=20 >>=20 >> correct. this is same as above: one sid per address (one for v4 and one = for v6). >>=20 >> s. >>=20 >>=20 >>> Or one could use IPv6 and/or IPv4 Explicit Null labels pushed on the bo= ttom of the label stack by the SR ingress router. >>>=20 >>> Do the authors of these drafts or other working group participants have= an opinion on the best way to address this scenario? >>>=20 >>> Thanks, >>> Chris >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> spring mailing list >>> spring@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >>=20 >=20 From nobody Wed Sep 3 17:01:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B3581A8771; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:01:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham 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 BExp1s7PStnd; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:00:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FDD31A8774; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:00:51 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c6180641-f79916d00000623a-d6-54075420e4cd Received: from EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.84]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id B9.4A.25146.02457045; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 19:47:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 20:00:48 -0400 From: Gregory Mirsky To: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" , "'draft-tissa-netmod-oam@tools.ietf.org'" Thread-Topic: draft-tissa-netmod-oam Thread-Index: Ac+tKouGZjiF/7GjRZGwGunQsgwS9AVplJ1wAT/fSeA= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 00:00:47 +0000 Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B82A71B@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> References: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B82567E@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.10] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B82A71Beusaamb103erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrKIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPiK5CCHuIwZnPphZ7t71ktXj87RC7 xa2lK1kt5l9sZLV4Ol/S4vOfbYwWxy/8ZrSYt+sDk0X3j6dsDpweU35vZPVYsuQnk8eXy5/Z ApijuGxSUnMyy1KL9O0SuDI2N35iLFg9k6ni+6JNTA2MbZ8Yuxg5OSQETCT+v5rFBGGLSVy4 t56ti5GLQ0jgKKPE5kvrWCCcZYwSB3bMYAOpYhMwknixsYcdJCEi0M8o8X7eHbAqZoFGJonv 19+zglQJC6hIPD9wFqxDREBVYn/jf2YI20ri69K1YPtYgGpe/rkIVs8r4CuxZM9OJoh1Exgl Pk3pBDuQEyjR3PuKBcRmBDrw+6k1YM3MAuISt57MhzpcAKj5PDOELSrx8vE/VghbSWLS0nOs EPX5Et/mr2GGWCYocXLmE5YJjKKzkIyahaRsFpIyiLiOxILdn9ggbG2JZQtfM8PYZw48ZkIW X8DIvoqRo7Q4tSw33chwEyMwXo9JsDnuYFzwyfIQowAHoxIP7wJWthAh1sSy4srcQ4zSHCxK 4rya1fOChQTSE0tSs1NTC1KL4otKc1KLDzEycXBKNTCqXGqU6FRI+tmWLxsSXHN667dHG45/ 9eFZlH50qa/4yZkP54qqVa1yWmghkj9rxn+xvszlHfcuJ9oeqDyjtWIyJ7uI2gKXAxz35i46 d3zD9CfTtqukPRT43fr/ytGwAIFHljZcDd+8BYVur89YnGbL5cO/vuJKiM/hikdePHdsnygz eDX/+q6kxFKckWioxVxUnAgAY9KYUbgCAAA= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/wJ7HjeHyaUQpnifnh9mj6tluAN8 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" , "mpls@ietf.org" , "spring@ietf.org" , "time@ietf.org" , "'netmod@ietf.org'" , "nvo3@ietf.org" , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] draft-tissa-netmod-oam X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 00:01:04 -0000 --_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B82A71Beusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Tissa, thank you for detailed and informative response. Information about OAM work= at TRILL WG is very interesting as I haven't been following it in much det= ails. I'd note that applicability of the model developed at TRILL WG to MPL= S OAM is not clear to me. I think that it would be helpful to discuss relev= ance of the TRILL's OAM model at MPLS and MPLS technology related WGs befor= e presenting it as the model that encompasses MPLS. Similarly, I think, for= the IP. Perhaps, for the time, we can refer to the model as TRILL OAM. Mor= e notes in-lined and tagged GIM>>. Regards, Greg From: Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir) [mailto:tsenevir@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 8:24 AM To: Gregory Mirsky; 'draft-tissa-netmod-oam@tools.ietf.org' Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; time@ietf.org; 'netmod@= ietf.org'; nvo3@ietf.org; rtg-bfd@ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-tissa-netmod-oam Greg Before answering the specific questions below, would like explain few aspe= cts related to the extended CFM model used here. CFM originally was design= ed exclusively for Ethernet. As part of the TRILL OAM work we decoupled CFM= model from Ethernet based addressing and made it addressing independent. T= hat is the CFM model that is referred here. CFM defines a complete fault model that include fault domains, Test point, = Layering etc. Strict definition of such is needed to develop a complete OAM= solution regardless of the underline technology. CFM does a fantastic job = in accomplishing that and AFIK there is no other model. We are leveraging t= hat model. The word generic OAM is utilized here to indicate that the model can be app= lied regardless of the underlying technology. YANG model is not a one-one copy of CFM YANG defined in MEF. Rather it is d= efined with address independent and extensibility in mind. With the above in mind, specific answers in-line: From: L2vpn [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 10:15 PM To: 'draft-tissa-netmod-oam@tools.ietf.org' Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; time@ietf.org; 'netmod@ietf.org'; nvo3@ietf.org; rtg-bfd@iet= f.org Subject: draft-tissa-netmod-oam Dear Authors, et.al, please kindly consider my comments and questions to this document: * Introduction o "... it is a reasonable choice to develop the unified OAM framework ba= sed on those (CFM) concepts." I agree that for packet switching connection-= oriented networks that are based on G.800 architecture CFM, but more so Y.1= 731, provides shared concepts. I think that the same cannot be said for con= nectionless packet switching networks. Thus extending CFM model onto arbitr= ary networks without consideration whether these are connection-oriented or= connectionless is very questionable approach, IMO; [Answer] As stated above it is the OAM Model that is leveraged here. Regard= less of connection oriented or not the model on Fault domains, Test points = etc is valid. In theory connection oriented can be broken in to connection establishment = and data forwarding. With that in mind, one can define Fault domain and tes= t points. Followed by definition of the Fault identifications tools accordi= ngly. Do you have a preferred OAM tool for fault verification/isolation and loss= and performance monitoring for connection oriented connectuons ?. If so wo= uld like to review and map to the model. GIM>> I don't have "favorite tool" but would point that in connectionless n= etwork one cannot define Mis-connection defect and thus OAM models for con= nectionless and connection-oriented networks would be different. o "...CFM, it is a reasonable choice to develop the unified OAM framework= based on those concepts" IP OAM is not based on Ethernet Service OAM model= or principles but, IMO, OAM of overlay networks more closer resemble IP OA= M as these networks are connectionless in their architecture; [Answer] Please see the answer above and extended CFM model. It is the mod= el that is presented here, regardless of the connectioness, OAM tools need= fault domains and fault boundaries. Addidtionally as stated in the explana= tion above, there is nothing Ethernet in CFM, once the addressing is decoup= led. o "The YANG model presented in this document is the base model and suppor= ts IP Ping and Traceroute." If only these and similar OAM tools, e.g. LSP p= ing, Loopback/Linktrace, are in scope of the document, then, I believe, the= title may say something like "YANG model of on-demand OAM tool to detect a= nd localize Loss of Continuity defect". Referring to ping/traceroute as "ge= neric OAM" comes as stretch too far; [Answer] I think there is a miss understanding this model is not limited to= Ping and Trace route. Ping and traceroute are only examples to get the wor= k stared and discussion going. As we go along other tools will be mapped to= the model. GIM>> LSP Ping does more that ICMP or CFM's Loopback and Linktrace as it ve= rifies correlation between control and data planes. Had that functionality = been removed by TRILL OAM from "extended CFM model"? o "...initiate a performance monitoring session can do so in the same ma= nner regardless of the underlying protocol or technology" I'd point to work= of LMAP WG on informational model of performance measurements in large-sca= le access networks, work of ITU-T's SG15, MEF. Perhaps sentence can be stop= ped after "... or a Traceroute". [Answer] I did not fully understand your point. o "In this document we define the YANG model for Generic OAM" Can you pro= vide definition or reference to the definition of the "Generic OAM"? It is = challenging to validate informational model of something that not been suff= iciently defined. [Answer] As explained earlier terminology generic OAM is used to indicate = that the presented OAM model can be applied independent of the underlying t= echnology. In section 1, we have stated the following: "..In this document,= we take the [8021Q] CFM model and extend it to a technology independent fr= amework and build the corresponding YANG model accordingly. The YANG model = presented in this document is the base model and supports IP Ping and Trace= route. The generic OAM YANG model is designed such that it can be extended = to cover various technologies. Technology dependent nodes and RPC commands = are defined in technology specific YANG models, which use and extend the ba= se model defined here. .... " GIM>> Had other WGs agreed that the proposed by TRILL WG OAM model is repre= sentative of their technologies? If not, then what "Generic" is there? * Section 3 o "This allows users to traverse between OAM of different technologies at= ease through a uniform API set." Usually relationships between OAM layers = referred and viewed as OAM interworking. There are several examples of IETF= addressing aspects of OAM interworking. I think that interworking includes= not only scenarios of nested OAM layers but peering layers and thus is bro= ader than introduced in the document "nested OAM". [Answer] Can you please provide some example here, I am not quite clear. Guessing from the word peering, if we are referring to cascaded sections of= different technologies such as IP Cloud, MPLS cloud and another IP cloud. = Then the model presented here is the answer. You can have an end end OAM se= ssion at a higher MD-Level. Each of the clouds below can have separate OAM = at a lower MD-Level. These can be utilized for fault isolation. o Figure 1 depicts OAM of both connection-oriented and connectionless net= works. What you see common, generic in respective OAM of these networks? [Answer] Please see the answers above. * Section 4 o "In IP, the MA can be per IP Subnet ..." As there's no definition of MA= in IP, is this the definition or one of examples. Can MA in IP network be = other than per IP Subnet? [Answer] It is ".. can be", so it meant to be an example and other possibil= ities are not ruled out and model does not assume any such limitation. o "Under each MA, there can be two or more MEPs (Maintenance End Points)"= Firstly, since you adopt MA-centric terminology, MEP stands for Maintenanc= e Association End Point. Secondly, in some OAM models Down and Up MEP being= distinguished. Would your model consider that? As there's no definition of= MEP for several networks you've listed, e.g. IP, how the YANG model will a= bstract something that is not defined? And thirdly, how and where MIPs are = located in IP OAM? [Answer] Yes model accept both UP/Down. One cannot say for IP there is no MEP. MEP is a functional abstraction of a= test point that generate and respond to OAM messages. In that regard IP de= vices today have an implicit MEP at the CPU. The model allow to provide mor= e semantics to the MEP and allow to create UP/Down per interface or other s= cope, hence providing more granularity in fault isolation/verification and = monitoring. GIM>> Is IP MEP being defined as being in control plane/CPU? What if it is = in NPU, i.e. data plane? If on CPU, then what differentiates Up MEP from Do= wn MEP from POV of packets it transmits and receives? And how MIP functions= in IP based on TRILL OAM model? Is it, as in Ethernet OAM, constructed of = two MHFs? Thank you for your consideration of my notes and looking forward to the int= eresting discussion. Thank you for spending time to review and comment. We are updating the next= version with comments received so far and specifically during IETF in Cana= da. We are more than happy enhance where applicable or need more clarity. Regards, Greg --_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B82A71Beusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Tissa,

thank you for detailed= and informative response. Information about OAM work at TRILL WG is very i= nteresting as I haven’t been following it in much details. I’d = note that applicability of the model developed at TRILL WG to MPLS OAM is not clear to me. I think that it would be helpful = to discuss relevance of the TRILL’s OAM model at MPLS and MPLS techno= logy related WGs before presenting it as the model that encompasses MPLS. S= imilarly, I think, for the IP. Perhaps, for the time, we can refer to the model as TRILL OAM. More notes in-lined = and tagged GIM>>.

 

   &nbs= p;            Regard= s,

   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;   Greg

 

From: Tissa Se= nevirathne (tsenevir) [mailto:tsenevir@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 8:24 AM
To: Gregory Mirsky; 'draft-tissa-netmod-oam@tools.ietf.org'
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; time@ietf.org; '= netmod@ietf.org'; nvo3@ietf.org; rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-tissa-netmod-oam

 

Greg=

 

Before answering the s= pecific questions below,  would like explain few aspects related to th= e extended CFM model used here. CFM  originally was designed exclusive= ly for Ethernet. As part of the TRILL OAM work we decoupled CFM model from Ethernet based addressing and made it addressi= ng independent. That is the CFM model that is referred here.

 

CFM defines a complete= fault model that include fault domains, Test point, Layering etc. Strict d= efinition of such is needed to develop a complete OAM solution regardless o= f the underline technology. CFM does a fantastic job in accomplishing that and AFIK there is no other model. We= are leveraging that model.

 

The word generic OAM i= s utilized here to indicate that the model can be applied regardless of the= underlying technology.

 

YANG model is not a on= e-one copy of CFM YANG defined in MEF. Rather it is defined with address in= dependent and extensibility in mind.

 

With the above in mind= , specific answers in-line:

 

From: L2vpn [<= a href=3D"mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org">mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 10:15 PM
To: 'draft-tissa-netmod-oam@tools.ietf.org'
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; = time@ietf.org; 'netmod@ietf.org'; nvo3= @ietf.org; rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: draft-tissa-netmod-oam

 

Dear Authors, et.al,

please kindly consider my comments and questions to = this document:

·         Introduction

o    “… it is a reasonable choi= ce to develop the unified OAM framework based on those (CFM) concepts.̶= 1; I agree that for packet switching connection-oriented networks that are = based on G.800 architecture CFM, but more so Y.1731, provides shared concepts. I think that the same cannot be said for connectionless p= acket switching networks. Thus extending CFM model onto arbitrary networks = without consideration whether these are connection-oriented or connectionle= ss is very questionable approach, IMO;

 

 

[Answer] As stated abo= ve it is the OAM Model that is leveraged here. Regardless of connection ori= ented or not the model on Fault domains, Test points etc is valid.

 

In theory connection o= riented can be broken in to connection establishment and data forwarding. W= ith that in mind, one can define Fault domain and test points. Followed by = definition of the Fault identifications tools accordingly.

 

Do you have a preferre= d OAM tool  for fault verification/isolation and loss and performance = monitoring for connection oriented connectuons ?. If so would like to revie= w and map to the model.

 

GIM>> I don̵= 7;t have “favorite tool” but would point that in connectionless= network one cannot define Mis-connection defect and thus OAM models for &n= bsp;connectionless and connection-oriented networks would be different.

 

o   “…CFM, it is a reasonable choice= to develop the unified OAM framework based on those concepts” IP OAM= is not based on Ethernet Service OAM model or principles but, IMO, OAM of = overlay networks more closer resemble IP OAM as these networks are connectionless in their architecture;

 

[Answer]  Please = see the answer above and extended CFM model. It is the model that is presen= ted here, regardless of the connectioness,  OAM tools need fault domai= ns and fault boundaries. Addidtionally as stated in the explanation above, there is nothing Ethernet in CFM, once the addre= ssing is decoupled.

 

o   “The YANG model presented in this docu= ment is the base model and supports IP Ping and Traceroute.” If only = these and similar OAM tools, e.g. LSP ping, Loopback/Linktrace, are in scop= e of the document, then, I believe, the title may say something like “YANG model of on-demand OAM tool to detect a= nd localize Loss of Continuity defect”. Referring to ping/traceroute = as “generic OAM” comes as stretch too far;

 

[Answer] I think there= is a miss understanding this model is not limited to Ping and Trace route.= Ping and traceroute are only examples to get the work stared and discussio= n going. As we go along other tools will be mapped to the model.

 

GIM>> LSP Ping d= oes more that ICMP or CFM’s Loopback and Linktrace as it verifies cor= relation between control and data planes. Had that functionality been remov= ed by TRILL OAM from “extended CFM model”?

 

o    “…initiate a performance m= onitoring session can do so in the same manner regardless of the underlying= protocol or technology” I’d point to work of LMAP WG on inform= ational model of performance measurements in large-scale access networks, work of ITU-T’s SG15, MEF. Perhaps sentence can be stopped= after “… or a Traceroute”.

[Answer] I did not ful= ly understand your point.

 

o   “In this document we define the YANG m= odel for Generic OAM” Can you provide definition or reference to the = definition of the “Generic OAM”? It is challenging to validate = informational model of something that not been sufficiently defined.

 

[Answer]  As expl= ained earlier terminology generic OAM is used to indicate that the presente= d OAM model can be applied independent of the underlying technology. In sec= tion 1, we have stated the following: “..In this document, we take the [8021Q] CFM model and extend it to a technology= independent framework and build the corresponding YANG model accordingly. = The YANG model presented in this document is the base model and supports IP= Ping and Traceroute. The generic OAM YANG model is designed such that it can be extended to cover various t= echnologies. Technology dependent nodes and RPC commands are defined in tec= hnology specific YANG models, which use and extend the base model defined h= ere. …. “

 

GIM>> Had other = WGs agreed that the proposed by TRILL WG OAM model is representative of the= ir technologies? If not, then what “Generic” is there?

 

·         Section 3

o   “This allows users to traverse between= OAM of different technologies at ease through a uniform API set.” Us= ually relationships between OAM layers referred and viewed as OAM interwork= ing. There are several examples of IETF addressing aspects of OAM interworking. I think that interworking includes not only s= cenarios of nested OAM layers but peering layers and thus is broader than i= ntroduced in the document “nested OAM”.

[Answer]  Can you= please provide some example here, I am not quite clear.<= /p>

 

Guessing from the word= peering, if we are referring to cascaded sections of different technologie= s such as IP Cloud, MPLS cloud and another IP cloud. Then the model present= ed here is the answer. You can have an end end OAM session at a higher MD-Level. Each of the clouds below can = have separate OAM at a lower MD-Level. These can be utilized for fault isol= ation.

 

o   Figure 1 depicts OAM of both connection-orie= nted and connectionless networks. What you see common, generic in respectiv= e OAM of these networks?

 

[Answer] Please see th= e answers above.

 

·         Section 4

o   “In IP, the MA can be per IP Subnet &#= 8230;” As there’s no definition of MA in IP, is this the defini= tion or one of examples. Can MA in IP network be other than per IP Subnet?<= o:p>

[Answer] It is “= .. can be”, so it meant to be an example and other possibilities are = not ruled out and model does not assume any such limitation.

 

o   “Under each MA, there can be two or mo= re MEPs (Maintenance End Points)” Firstly, since you adopt MA-centric= terminology, MEP stands for Maintenance Association End Point. Secondly, i= n some OAM models Down and Up MEP being distinguished. Would your model consider that? As there’s no definition of MEP for = several networks you’ve listed, e.g. IP, how the YANG model will abst= ract something that is not defined? And thirdly, how and where MIPs are loc= ated in IP OAM?

 

[Answer] Yes model acc= ept both UP/Down.

 

One cannot say for IP = there is no MEP. MEP is a functional abstraction of a test point that gener= ate and respond to OAM messages. In that regard IP devices today have an im= plicit MEP at the CPU. The model allow to provide more semantics to the MEP and allow to create UP/Down per inter= face or other scope, hence providing more granularity in fault isolation/ve= rification and monitoring.

 

GIM>> Is IP MEP = being defined as being in control plane/CPU? What if it is in NPU, i.e. dat= a plane? If on CPU, then what differentiates Up MEP from Down MEP from POV = of packets it transmits and receives? And how MIP functions in IP based on TRILL OAM model? Is it, as in Ethernet OA= M, constructed of two MHFs?

 

Thank you for your consideration of my notes and loo= king forward to the interesting discussion.

 

Thank you for spending= time to review and comment. We are updating the next version with comments= received so far and specifically during IETF in Canada. We are more than h= appy enhance where applicable or need more clarity.

 

Regards,

    =     Greg

--_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B82A71Beusaamb103erics_-- From nobody Fri Sep 12 05:15:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DDD71A078D for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 05:15:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -16.153 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.153 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 wbLa7v3kELCJ for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 05:15:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9885C1A0747 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 05:15:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2025; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1410524147; x=1411733747; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=7HX4Teupbkp9WxPbHQ7y24KONw/WfT/CO/WT3xCpb0w=; b=SDMCjn7QK1nI7eZu58bufAYSyy+hA1FOQiooz3a8xhHWnnUek17AdLAV RL+Ia90zk6qjzqNLaDbhekgl1U+qBwqkzGUBluDnvqVGwkiF9eFknpaSD 1D0qNA2tyUQ1dLSYs+Vsc2l0rnlOAKw8RsJQNbWXWswxb6+rNciYmu07u Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag8FAJPjElStJA2G/2dsb2JhbABfgw1TVwTIcYdMgREWeIQDAQEBBDo9EgIBGQECAQIfEDIXBAIIAgQTCYg5Db1MARePWoMpgR0FkU2EN4cEgV+TYIIbgUZsAYFHgQcBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,512,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="77332154" Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Sep 2014 12:15:46 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8CCFkoI012254 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 12:15:46 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.160]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 07:15:45 -0500 From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" To: "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHPzoMU3Zgm9HI0gk+NOhy3GMerZg== Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 12:15:45 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20140912121410.28951.842.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.147.74.73] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <7703F46C8581AE48B1890CFD1593D491@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ObaCF2yAJmEPW5ilmxrBK-oLD_8 Subject: [spring] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-02.txt X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 12:15:49 -0000 refreshed with fixed typo's. s. Begin forwarded message: > From: > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routi= ng-ldp-interop-02.txt > Date: September 12, 2014 2:14:10 PM GMT+02:00 >=20 > A new version of I-D, draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-0= 2.txt > has been successfully submitted by Stefano Previdi and posted to the > IETF repository. >=20 > Name: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop > Revision: 02 > Title: Segment Routing interoperability with LDP > Document date: 2014-09-12 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 16 > URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-filsfils-spring= -segment-routing-ldp-interop-02.txt > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfils-spring-se= gment-routing-ldp-interop/ > Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-= routing-ldp-interop-02 > Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-filsfils-spring-= segment-routing-ldp-interop-02 >=20 > Abstract: > A Segment Routing (SR) node steers a packet through a controlled set > of instructions, called segments, by prepending the packet with an SR > header. A segment can represent any instruction, topological or > service-based. SR allows to enforce a flow through any topological > path and service chain while maintaining per-flow state only at the > ingress node to the SR domain. >=20 > The Segment Routing architecture can be directly applied to the MPLS > data plane with no change in the forwarding plane. This drafts > describes how Segment Routing operates in a network where LDP is > deployed and in the case where SR-capable and non-SR-capable nodes > coexist. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submiss= ion > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >=20 > The IETF Secretariat >=20 From nobody Tue Sep 16 23:27:39 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E5BB1A0484 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:27:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.253 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_62=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 I3imoAtCKZzK for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:27:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D1C11A02BE for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:27:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BMR66541; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 06:27:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.33) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 07:26:34 +0100 Received: from NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.18]) by nkgeml402-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.33]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 14:26:29 +0800 From: Xuxiaohu To: "" Thread-Topic: Request WG adoption polling//FW: [spring] The rationale of draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip Thread-Index: Ac+XNbvwgjeJ7UQ5TYug+cTuo+tEef//4xuA/82NaND/cLhiEP7IGUcQ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 06:26:28 +0000 Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE082B6F65@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.134] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/p94HvBa3EYXO_S9RRhdkG30I3NI Subject: Re: [spring] Request WG adoption polling//FW: The rationale of draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 06:27:38 -0000 SGkgY28tY2hhaXJzLA0KDQpUaGUgcmF0aW9uYWxlIG9mIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQgaXMgc2ltcGxlIGFu ZCBjbGVhcjogZm9yIGEgZ2l2ZW4gbGFiZWwgYmluZGluZyBvZiBGRUMgWCBsZWFybnQgdGhvdWdo IElHUHMsIGlmIHRoZSBJR1AgbmV4dC1ob3AgZm9yIEZFQyBYIGlzIGEgbm9uLVNQUklORyBub2Rl IChpLmUuLCBqdXN0IGEgbm9ybWFsIElHUCByb3V0ZXIgd2hpY2ggc3VwcG9ydHMgSVAgZm9yd2Fy ZGluZyksIHRoYXQgbGFiZWwgYmluZGluZyBzaG91bGQgYmUgdHJlYXRlZCBhcyBpdCB3YXMgcmVt b3RlbHkgbGVhcm50IGZyb20gdGhlIG9yaWdpbmF0aW5nIHJvdXRlciBvZiB0aGF0IGxhYmVsIGJp bmRpbmcsIGp1c3QgYXMgaWYgaXQgd2FzIGxlYXJudCBmcm9tIGEgcmVtb3RlIExEUCBwZWVyIG9y IEJHUCBwZWVyLiBJbiBvdGhlciB3b3JkcywgdGhlIHBhY2tldCB3aXRoIHN1Y2ggbGFiZWwgYXMg dGhlIHRvcCBsYWJlbCBzaG91bGQgYmUgdHVubmVsZWQgdG93YXJkcyB0aGF0IHJlbW90ZSBwZWVy IHZpYSBzb21lIHR5cGUgb2YgSVAtYmFzZWQgdHVubmVsLiANCg0KU3VjaCBwcm9jZWR1cmUgaXMg dmVyeSB1c2VmdWwgZm9yIGluY3JlbWVudGFsIGRlcGxveW1lbnQgcHVycG9zZSBhbmQgc29tZSBz cGVjaWFsIHVzZSBjYXNlcyBhbmQgdGhlcmVmb3JlIGl0IHNob3VsZCBiZSBzcGVjaWZpZWQgc29t ZXdoZXJlLiBUaGVyZWZvcmUgd2UgY28tYXV0aG9ycyByZXF1ZXN0IHlvdSB0byBpc3N1ZSBhIFdH IGFkb3B0aW9uIHBvbGwgb24gdGhpcyBkcmFmdC4gVGhhbmtzLg0KDQpCZXN0IHJlZ2FyZHMsDQpY aWFvaHUgKG9uIGJlaGFsZiBvZiBhbGwgY28tYXV0aG9ycykNCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNz YWdlLS0tLS0NCkZyb206IFh1eGlhb2h1IA0KU2VudDogTW9uZGF5LCBTZXB0ZW1iZXIgMDEsIDIw MTQgMTE6MTIgQU0NClRvOiAnPHNwcmluZ0BpZXRmLm9yZz4nDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSRTogUmVxdWVz dCBXRyBhZG9wdGlvbiBwb2xsaW5nLy9GVzogW3NwcmluZ10gVGhlIHJhdGlvbmFsZSBvZiBkcmFm dC14dS1zcHJpbmctaXNsYW5kcy1jb25uZWN0aW9uLW92ZXItaXANCg0KSGkgY28tY2hhaXJzLA0K DQpXZSBjby1hdXRob3JzIGJlbGlldmUgdGhpcyByZXZpc2lvbiAoaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYu b3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQteHUtc3ByaW5nLWlzbGFuZHMtY29ubmVjdGlvbi1vdmVyLWlwLTAyKSBp cyByZWFkeSBmb3IgV0cgYWRvcHRpb24uIFdvdWxkIHlvdSBwbGVhc2Ugc3RhcnQgYW4gYWRvcHRp b24gcG9sbCBvbiB0aGlzIGRvYz8NCg0KQmVzdCByZWdhcmRzLA0KWGlhb2h1IChvbiBiZWhhbGYg b2YgYWxsIGNvLWF1dGhvcnMpDQoNCj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4gRnJv bTogWHV4aWFvaHUNCj4gU2VudDogVHVlc2RheSwgQXVndXN0IDA1LCAyMDE0IDExOjU5IEFNDQo+ IFRvOiA8c3ByaW5nQGlldGYub3JnPg0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZXF1ZXN0IFdHIGFkb3B0aW9uIHBv bGxpbmcvL0ZXOiBbc3ByaW5nXSBUaGUgcmF0aW9uYWxlIG9mIA0KPiBkcmFmdC14dS1zcHJpbmct aXNsYW5kcy1jb25uZWN0aW9uLW92ZXItaXANCj4gDQo+IEhpIGNvLWNoYWlycywNCj4gDQo+IFdl IGhhdmUgYWRkcmVzc2VkIGFsbCBjb21tZW50cyByZWNlaXZlZCBzbyBmYXIgaW4gdGhlIGZvbGxv d2luZyANCj4gcmV2aXNpb24gDQo+IChodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC14 dS1zcHJpbmctaXNsYW5kcy1jb25uZWN0aW9uLW92ZXItaXANCj4gLTAxKS4gTm90ZSB0aGF0IGhv dyB0byBkeW5hbWljYWxseSBvYnRhaW4gdGhlIGVuY2Fwc3VsYXRpb24gDQo+IGNhcGFiaWxpdGll cyBpcyBkZWZpbmVkIGluIHNlcGFyYXRlIGRvY3MgKGUuZy4sDQo+IGh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRm Lm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LXh1LWlzaXMtZW5jYXBzdWxhdGlvbi1jYXAtMDApDQo+IA0KPiBXZSBj by1hdXRob3JzIGJlbGlldmUgdGhlIGN1cnJlbnQgdmVyc2lvbiBpcyByZWFkeSBmb3IgV0cgYWRv cHRpb24uDQo+IA0KPiBCZXN0IHJlZ2FyZHMsDQo+IFhpYW9odShvbiBiZWhhbGYgb2YgYWxsIGNv LWF1dGhvcnMpDQo+IA0KPiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBycmFz enVrQGdtYWlsLmNvbSBbbWFpbHRvOnJyYXN6dWtAZ21haWwuY29tXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgUm9i ZXJ0IA0KPiBSYXN6dWsNCj4gU2VudDogRnJpZGF5LCBKdWx5IDA0LCAyMDE0IDU6MjkgUE0NCj4g VG86IFh1eGlhb2h1DQo+IENjOiA8c3ByaW5nQGlldGYub3JnPg0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW3Nw cmluZ10gVGhlIHJhdGlvbmFsZSBvZiANCj4gZHJhZnQteHUtc3ByaW5nLWlzbGFuZHMtY29ubmVj dGlvbi1vdmVyLWlwDQo+IA0KPiBIaSBYdSwNCj4gDQo+IFdlIGRpc2N1c3NlZCB0aGlzIHdvcmsg YmVmb3JlLCBob3dldmVyIEkgaGF2ZSBhIG5ldyBxdWVzdGlvbiAuLi4NCj4gDQo+IEl0IGlzIGFu IGluZm9ybWF0aW9uYWwgZHJhZnQgc28geW91IHJlbGF5IG9uIHByb3BlciBjb25maWd1cmF0aW9u IG9mIA0KPiBSUyBub2RlcyBpbiB0aGUgaXNsYW5kcy4NCj4gDQo+IE5vdGUgdGhhdCB0b2RheSB5 b3UgbWF5IGhhdmUgb3V0IG9mIHRoZSBib3ggU1Igbm9kZSBzdXBwb3J0aW5nIElQdjQsDQo+IElQ djYgKHNheSB3aXRob3V0IFNSKSArIE1QTFMuIFNvIHlvdSBtdXN0IHNlbGVjdCB5b3VyIG9wZXJh dGlvbmFsIA0KPiBkZWZhdWx0IGVuY2Fwc3VsYXRpb24gYW5kIHZlcnkgbGlrZWx5IHN1Y2ggZW5j YXBzdWxhdGlvbiB3aWxsIGRpZmZlciANCj4gcGVyIG5leHQgU1IgZGVzdGluYXRpb24gIQ0KPiAN Cj4gSSB0aGVyZWZvciBmaW5kIGl0IG5vdCByZWFsbHkgcHJhY3RpY2FsIHRvIHJlY29tbWVuZCBt YW51YWwvaTJycy94bWwgDQo+IGNvbmZpZ3VyYXRpb24gYW5kIGNob2ljZSBvZiBlbmNhcHN1bGF0 aW9uIG9uIGEgcGVyIFNSIG5vZGUgYmFzaXMuDQo+IA0KPiBJIHdvdWxkIHRoZXJlZm9yIGFkdmlz ZSBpZiB0aGVyZSB3b3VsZCBiZSBhcmNoaXRlY3R1cmFsIGNvbnNlbnN1cyB0byANCj4gZ28gZm9y d2FyZCB3aXRoIHRoZSBwcm9wb3NlZCBpbiB0aGUgZHJhZnQgaWRlYSB0byB0dXJuIGl0IGludG8g DQo+IHN0YW5kYXJkcyB0cmFjayBhbmQgYWRkIGEgZmxhZyBhbmQgZW5jYXAgaW5mbyBpbiBTUiBh ZHZlcnRpc2VtZW50IA0KPiBpdHNlbGYgaW5kaWNhdGluZyB0aGF0IGdpdmVuIFNSIG5vZGUgbWF5 IGJlIHJlYWNoYWJsZSBzYXkgdmlhIEdSRSwNCj4gTDJUUHYzIG9yIFZYTEFOIGVuY2Fwcy4NCj4g DQo+IFRoYXQgd2F5IHlvdXIgb2JqZWN0aXZlIGlzIGFjY29tcGxpc2hlZCB2aWEgZnVsbCBwcm90 b2NvbCBhdXRvbWF0aW9uIA0KPiB3aXRoIG1pbmltYWwgbmVlZCBmb3IgYW55IHBlciBTUiBzcmMv ZHN0IG5vZGUgbWFudWFsIGNvbmZpZy4NCj4gDQo+IEJlc3QsDQo+IFIuDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+ IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gT24gRnJpLCBKdWwgNCwgMjAxNCBhdCA1 OjEyIEFNLCBYdXhpYW9odSA8eHV4aWFvaHVAaHVhd2VpLmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6DQo+ID4gSGkgYWxs LA0KPiA+DQo+ID4gVGhpcyBkcmFmdA0KPiAoaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJh ZnQteHUtc3ByaW5nLWlzbGFuZHMtY29ubmVjdGlvbi1vdmVyLWlwDQo+IC0wMCkgZGVzY3JpYmVz IGEgdXNlIGNhc2UgYWJvdXQgaW50ZXJjb25uZWN0aW5nIHNwcmluZyBpc2xhbmRzIG92ZXIgSVAg DQo+IG5ldHdvcmtzLiBUaGUgcmF0aW9uYWxlIGZvciB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0IGlzIGFzIGZvbGxvd3M6 DQo+ID4NCj4gPiBTdXBwb3NlIExTUiBBIGFuZCBMU1IgQiBhcmUgc2VwYXJhdGVkIGJ5IGFuIElQ IG5ldHdvcmsuIEFzc3VtZSBMU1IgQQ0KPiByZWNlaXZlcyBmcm9tIExTUiBCIGEgbGFiZWwgYmlu ZGluZyBMIGZvciBhIGdpdmVuIEZFQyAoZS5nLiwgb25lIG9mIA0KPiBMU1IgQidzIGxvb3BiYWNr IGFkZHJlc3NlcykgdmlhIFQtTERQIG9yIEwtQkdQLCB3aGVuIExTUiBBIHdhbnRzIHRvIA0KPiBm b3J3YXJkIGEgTVBMUyBwYWNrZXQgdGFyZ2V0ZWQgZm9yIHRoYXQgRkVDLCBpdCBjb3VsZCBmb3J3 YXJkIHRoYXQgDQo+IE1QTFMgcGFja2V0IHRocm91Z2ggYW4gSVAtYmFzZWQgdHVubmVsIHRvd2Fy ZHMgTFNSIEIuIEluIGNvbnRyYXN0LCBpZiANCj4gTFNSIEEgcmVjZWl2ZXMgdGhlIGFib3ZlIGxh YmVsIGJpbmRpbmcgb3JpZ2luYXRlZCBieSBMU1IgQiB2aWEgSVMtSVMgDQo+IG9yIE9TUEYsIGl0 IGNvdWxkIGJlIGxvb2tlZCBhcyBpZiB0aGlzIGxhYmVsIGJpbmRpbmcgd2FzIGxlYXJudCBmcm9t IGEgDQo+IHJlbW90ZSBCR1Agb3IgTERQIHBlZXIuIEFzIHN1Y2gsIExTUiBBIGNvdWxkIGZvcndh cmQgdGhlIE1QTFMgcGFja2V0IA0KPiB0YXJnZXRlZCBmb3IgdGhhdCBGRUMgb3ZlciBhbiBJUC1i YXNlZCB0dW5uZWwgdG93YXJkcyBMU1IgQiBhcyB3ZWxsLg0KPiA+DQo+ID4gSW4gZmFjdCwgb25l IG9mIHRoZSBjbGFpbWVkIGFkdmFudGFnZXMgb2YgSVB2Ni1TUiBpcyB0aGF0IGl0IGRvZXNuJ3Qg DQo+ID4gcmVxdWlyZSB0bw0KPiB1cGdyYWRlIGFsbCByb3V0ZXJzIGluIHRoZSBuZXR3b3Jrcy4g V2l0aCB0aGUgYWJvdmUgYXBwcm9hY2gsIHdlIGNhbiANCj4gYWNoaWV2ZSB0aGUgc2FtZSBlZmZl Y3QgaW4gdGhlIE1QTFMtU1IuDQo+ID4NCj4gPiBCZXN0IHJlZ2FyZHMsDQo+ID4gWGlhb2h1DQo+ ID4NCj4gPiBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0K PiA+IHNwcmluZyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCj4gPiBzcHJpbmdAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gPiBodHRwczov L3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3NwcmluZw0K From nobody Tue Sep 23 11:29:05 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F301F1A885A for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:29:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.286 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 fohut29VFcyS for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:29:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE4011A8851 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:29:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2181; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1411496940; x=1412706540; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=1AeSKil9Cnu51udDo0QFg8PijjvYC68Ik3dJjtWP5Os=; b=CoqhMAcTDF4/H45Uo8ZcGsT16hriTWDXuq5HWhUtEjuWGYn3t83yNqmr RzJxthvAiCWN1JNaZR7uvMWVb1rwqCGeRzPFuelGFjbdNkXxF55tPkEnb e1NTLbYgeacz3luI0lTdOzZt85fAuXzlY0KxRVAgguD+ZwhyjAKOvfZkV A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmcNAPi6IVStJA2M/2dsb2JhbABggkhGU1gDhBnDUoFrh02BDRYBcQmECh1cEgEMAXMnBA6IQw3DDgEXkAeEUgWPQoIYhDqHCIFhk3KDYoI0gQIBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.04,581,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="80573474" Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Sep 2014 18:28:59 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8NISxvd031432 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 23 Sep 2014 18:28:59 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.9.183]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:28:59 -0500 From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" To: "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement Thread-Index: AQHP11w9rAQHnD2yKkWCLDoCkokjgA== Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 18:28:58 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.3] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D04734286AB46aretanaciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/s24uUjrjp3ft2rPrFDaR0-SDPbM Cc: "draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 18:29:03 -0000 --_000_D04734286AB46aretanaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! As agreed at the last in person meeting, this message starts the Working Gr= oup Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement. This call will clos= e by EOD (pick your favorite time zone) on October 8, 2014. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement Please provide specific feedback as to why you support (or not) the advance= ment of this draft. Please avoid "+1"-type responses. Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_D04734286AB46aretanaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi!

As agreed at the last in person meet= ing, this message starts the Worki= ng Group Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement. &nb= sp;This call will close by EOD (pick your favorite time zone) on October 8, 2014.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement

Please provide specific feedback as to why you support (or not) the ad= vancement of this draft.  Please avoid "+1"-type respons= es.  

Thanks!

Alvaro.
--_000_D04734286AB46aretanaciscocom_-- From nobody Tue Sep 23 11:35:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4481A884D for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:35:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.286 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 P6oNEqkTQ0L9 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:35:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55E711A887B for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:35:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1719; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1411497300; x=1412706900; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=EDgqZjzljRdvUfm0sw8uy0ktkSl1sDOtvnS7xDieWVM=; b=UCwADt3+dhV7Cwv66b77yTOy+21FAGU43BBrHiF7VCgtzp9erYrofaab 5BQtmiRVT7wH5/Yz0kfFdG+Ce75VM9Ao7f92FNCLHMEjI/BDVNFy8Baoo y0VWx4XEqcdrdvfyoafUs2K1jvjUyogLJQ7E4W71Ft/ON1HWsm2mv0Zqy s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEIAOa8IVStJV2T/2dsb2JhbABggkhGgS7RI4ENFgFxCYN6EHkSAQsBdCcEDohDwx0BF5AHhFIFj0KCGItClVODYoI0gQIBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.04,581,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="80577223" Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Sep 2014 18:34:59 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com [173.37.183.81]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8NIYx9s032441 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 23 Sep 2014 18:34:59 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.9.183]) by xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([173.37.183.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:34:59 -0500 From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" To: "draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IPR Claims related to draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement Thread-Index: AQHP110UWlrIQihAb0++yZCGOEYOTg== Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 18:34:59 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.3] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D047358F6ABA1aretanaciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/YvU2RxRdLZZ_PmCCNwAXbCqLyVw Cc: "spring@ietf.org" Subject: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 18:35:53 -0000 --_000_D047358F6ABA1aretanaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! In parallel to the WGLC for this draft, I want to formally ask the authors = (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version of the draft) = to please respond to this message indicating whether or not you are aware o= f any relevant IPR. So far there are no related disclosures. The draft wi= ll not progress (pending the results of the WGLC) until we have received a = response from each author. Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_D047358F6ABA1aretanaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi!

In parallel to the WGLC for this draft, I want to formally ask th= e authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version of t= he draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether or not you a= re aware of any relevant IPR.  So far there are no related disclosures.  The draft will not progress (pendi= ng the results of the WGLC) until we have received a response from each aut= hor.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

--_000_D047358F6ABA1aretanaciscocom_-- From nobody Tue Sep 23 11:36:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1A741A882A for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:36:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.286 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 6QKQmfwHdC2o for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:36:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C904E1A8887 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:35:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3136; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1411497344; x=1412706944; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=nmnXYAnEKuhlkCrUbB+XOdtZKoC2anX0bG0KnzpOQyI=; b=CplUroQWXXi/GwWKp77fUPFBzxcAexzyK/f2MvM5dt4UqGZsc63dFY/q Vvc/GVFUhicRW+D9+PBnuxyWGm/Gfvfm0531z5Nhn32SPDD9pHpiWPy3b 96v1BZeVvk9J8aa3lnIblWOclE4TJAk355v1DPO+SL2DSoZOfaU3oWSu+ I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmsIAJ28IVStJV2P/2dsb2JhbABggkhGU1eEHcNSgWuHTQGBDBYBeoQDAQEBBB1cDAQCAQgEEQILJDIdCAIEAQ0FCIg2DcMOARePVjEHBoMogR0Fj0KCGIQ6iGmTcoNibIJKAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,581,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="357576015" Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Sep 2014 18:35:44 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com [173.37.183.85]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8NIZiea001662 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 23 Sep 2014 18:35:44 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.174]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:35:43 -0500 From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" To: "spring@ietf.org" , "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement Thread-Index: AQHP11w9rAQHnD2yKkWCLDoCkokjgJwPC6W2 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 18:35:43 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E0A1DE675FEC854ABF07D319E556FE6440B72BC1xmbrcdx01ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/nyP6Zy4T8tMq1YedUeL5arKW3Pc Cc: "draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 18:36:14 -0000 --_000_E0A1DE675FEC854ABF07D319E556FE6440B72BC1xmbrcdx01ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As co-author, I support the advancement of this draft. s. -----Original Message----- From: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [aretana@cisco.com] Received: Tuesday, 23 Sep 2014, 20:29 To: spring@ietf.org [spring@ietf.org] CC: draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org [draft-ietf-spring-p= roblem-statement@tools.ietf.org] Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement Hi! As agreed at the last in person meeting, this message starts the Working Gr= oup Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement. This call will clos= e by EOD (pick your favorite time zone) on October 8, 2014. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement Please provide specific feedback as to why you support (or not) the advance= ment of this draft. Please avoid "+1"-type responses. Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_E0A1DE675FEC854ABF07D319E556FE6440B72BC1xmbrcdx01ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As co-author, I support the advancement of this draft.

s.

-----Original Message-----
From: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [aretana@cisco.com]
Received: Tuesday, 23 Sep 2014, 20:29
To: spring@ietf.org [spring@ietf.org]
CC: draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org [draft-ietf-s= pring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org]
Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement
Hi!

As agreed at the last in person meet= ing, this message starts the Worki= ng Group Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement. &nb= sp;This call will close by EOD (pick your favorite time zone) on October 8, 2014.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement

Please provide specific feedback as to why you support (or not) the ad= vancement of this draft.  Please avoid "+1"-type respons= es.  

Thanks!

Alvaro.
--_000_E0A1DE675FEC854ABF07D319E556FE6440B72BC1xmbrcdx01ciscoc_-- From nobody Tue Sep 23 16:28:10 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495F01A024C for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:27:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 rGZYQd6yCrOu for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:27:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-x232.google.com (mail-we0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C1BD1A036E for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:27:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f178.google.com with SMTP id t60so5336437wes.37 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:27:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ESIUrfkrnhMh0MiIj+twnREMsAxGYdIqWDsvBOOcOOY=; b=hoy/YBEWpyGTAA5Z8k/fAOAsvI06W49cPA/FwYdj/9UEhRP0vudqMfVBRPCPq0Ge2S yge4ZuXEqPTSq1YcIUtnsNSy8O30reGnJWOnWKGmHimGZb2WMZjtnLArxtdjX5dHECz7 aSry3NjZEdXYWvbIqmKG2Mv+SB9y4DXPB9RHTkQ2hezlSr/JvYXwaoWUuObsLpuf2iZz c+c+vZ1xIwr8nuI7ii0cqWu8GrUuss+VsqrVI0AKmMh7AjSHmc0HpXY2WxZoeMcwcdVD 39OC9qE9VoTq+PccRzdagmqYqqhzv/LD1j6sYkPGR9ik7FAi/pIIbTSD1EYqBYDNfZZ+ UWiw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.97.98 with SMTP id dz2mr7269015wib.26.1411514871823; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:27:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.135.65 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:27:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:27:51 -0400 Message-ID: From: "B.Khasnabish@ieee.org" To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0442713287c4ca0503c3ea0d Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/FfAqPYCftHmlHNvYzavHY8Hh5ss Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 23:27:55 -0000 --f46d0442713287c4ca0503c3ea0d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Dear All, As was suggested earlier ( Tue., 01 July 2014 ) ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spring/current/msg00915.html ) it may be useful to include a statement like the following sentence in Sec. 6 (Interoperability with non-SPRING nodes) of the SPRING problem statement draft (draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-01.txt). Interoperability with openFlow ( https://www.opennetworking.org/sdn-resources/onf-specifications/openflow ) based non-SPRING nodes will be discussed in a future document. Note that currently there are two drafts discussing SPRING-OpenFlow interworking .. http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-khc-spring-openflow-interworking-use-cases/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-khc-spring-openflow-interworking-req/ Many thanks for kind consideration. Best. Bhumip, Mr. Hu and Hakki On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > Hi! > > As agreed at the last in person meeting, this message starts the Working > Group Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement. This call will > close by EOD (pick your favorite time zone) on October 8, 2014. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement > > Please provide specific feedback as to why you support (or not) the > advancement of this draft. Please avoid "+1"-type responses. > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > --f46d0442713287c4ca0503c3ea0d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=C2=A0
Dear All,
=C2=A0
<= div style=3D"font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:large" class=3D"gmail_defa= ult">As was suggested earlier ( Tue., 01 July 2014 )
( http://www.ietf.org/ma= il-archive/web/spring/current/msg00915.html )
=C2=A0
it may be useful to include a statement like
the following sentence= in
Sec. 6 (Interoperability with non-SPRING nodes) of the SPRI= NG problem statement
draft (draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement= -01.txt).
=C2=A0
Interoperability with openFlow
<= font>( https://www.opennetworking.org/sdn-resources/onf-specifica= tions/openflow )
based non-SPRING nodes will be discussed=C2= =A0 in a future document.
Note that currently there are two drafts disc= ussing SPRING-OpenFlow interworking ..
=C2=A0
http= ://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-khc-spring-openflow-interworking-use-case= s/
=C2=A0
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-khc-spring-openflow-= interworking-req/
=C2=A0

Many thanks for kind= consideration.
=C2=A0
Best.
=C2=A0
<= div style=3D"font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:large" class=3D"gmail_defa= ult">Bhumip, Mr. Hu and Hakki
=C2=A0
=C2=A0

On = Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <= ;aretana@cisco.com> wrote:

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
= https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring


--f46d0442713287c4ca0503c3ea0d-- From nobody Tue Sep 23 23:34:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329661A70FD for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 23:34:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.635 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.635 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham 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 8kO1cRPmJJYO for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 23:34:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail93.telekom.de (tcmail93.telekom.de [80.149.113.205]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15AC11A1AAF for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 23:34:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from s4de8nsazdfe010.bmbg.telekom.de ([10.175.246.202]) by tcmail91.telekom.de with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2014 08:34:22 +0200 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,587,1406584800"; d="scan'208,217";a="535808982" Received: from he113656.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.99.16]) by q4de8nsa015.bmbg.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 24 Sep 2014 08:34:22 +0200 Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([169.254.3.32]) by HE113656.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.99.16]) with mapi; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:34:21 +0200 From: To: Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:34:20 +0200 Thread-Topic: IPR Claims related to draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement Thread-Index: AQHP110UWlrIQihAb0++yZCGOEYOTpwP04iw Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CA7A7C64CC4ADB458B74477EA99DF6F5031D43D969HE111643EMEA1_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/YFd_mTQqpFEr9z6k1HjEFUbcrlg Cc: spring@ietf.org, draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:34:29 -0000 --_000_CA7A7C64CC4ADB458B74477EA99DF6F5031D43D969HE111643EMEA1_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Alvaro, I'm not aware of any IPR claims related to draft-ietf-spring-problem-statem= ent. I support adoption of this draft as a co-author. Regards, Ruediger Von: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [mailto:aretana@cisco.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. September 2014 20:35 An: draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org Cc: spring@ietf.org Betreff: IPR Claims related to draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement Hi! In parallel to the WGLC for this draft, I want to formally ask the authors = (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version of the draft) = to please respond to this message indicating whether or not you are aware o= f any relevant IPR. So far there are no related disclosures. The draft wi= ll not progress (pending the results of the WGLC) until we have received a = response from each author. Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_CA7A7C64CC4ADB458B74477EA99DF6F5031D43D969HE111643EMEA1_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Alvaro,

 

I’m not aware of any IPR claims related= to draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement.

=

 <= /span>

I support= adoption of this draft as a co-author.

 

Regards,

 

Rued= iger

 

Von:= Alv= aro Retana (aretana) [mailto:aretana@cisco.com]
Gesendet: Dienst= ag, 23. September 2014 20:35
An: draft-ietf-spring-problem-statem= ent@tools.ietf.org
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Betreff: IPR Cla= ims related to draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement

 

Hi!

<= o:p> 

In parallel= to the WGLC for this draft, I want to formally ask the authors (no ad= ditional contributors are listed in the latest version of the draft) to ple= ase respond to this message indicating whether or not you are aware of any = relevant IPR.  So far there are no related disclosures.  The draf= t will not progress (pending the results of the WGLC) until we have receive= d a response from each author.

 

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:bla= ck'>Thanks!

=  

Alvaro.

 <= /span>

= --_000_CA7A7C64CC4ADB458B74477EA99DF6F5031D43D969HE111643EMEA1_-- From nobody Tue Sep 23 23:41:42 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A013D1A899C for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 23:41:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 tcGSirgE5l5i for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 23:41:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52F7C1A8027 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 23:41:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.1]) by omfedm14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 1E97A22C59F; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:41:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Exchangemail-eme1.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.1.186]) by omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id F180135C0A6; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:41:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::a441:e6a9:6143:6f0f]) by PEXCVZYH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:41:35 +0200 From: To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement Thread-Index: AQHP11w9rAQHnD2yKkWCLDoCkokjgJwP1mcg Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:41:34 +0000 Message-ID: <26777_1411540896_542267A0_26777_2480_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A0720378A@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.197.38.4] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A0720378APEXCVZYM11corpo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2014.9.24.54820 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/k3uIPrhHVbcR95xOdvR9uwzxxlY Cc: "draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:41:40 -0000 --_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A0720378APEXCVZYM11corpo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As co-author, I support the advancement of this draft. From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (a= retana) Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 8:29 PM To: spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org Subject: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement Hi! As agreed at the last in person meeting, this message starts the Working Gr= oup Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement. This call will clos= e by EOD (pick your favorite time zone) on October 8, 2014. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement Please provide specific feedback as to why you support (or not) the advance= ment of this draft. Please avoid "+1"-type responses. Thanks! Alvaro. ___________________________________________________________________________= ______________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu= ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el= ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou = falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf= ormation that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele= te this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been = modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. --_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A0720378APEXCVZYM11corpo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

As co-author= , I support the advancement of this draft.

 = ;

From: spring [= mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (aretana)
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 8:29 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement<= /o:p>

 

Hi!

 

As agreed at the last in pe= rson meeting, this message starts the Working Group Last Call for draf= t-ietf-spring-problem-statement.  This call will close by EOD (pick your favorite time zone) on October 8, 2014.

 

 

Please provide specific fee= dback as to why you support (or not) the advancement of this draft.  P= lease avoid "+1"-type responses.  

 

Thanks!

 

Alvaro. 

______________________________________________________________________=
___________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden=
tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu=
 ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el=
ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou =
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf=
ormation that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele=
te this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been =
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
--_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A0720378APEXCVZYM11corpo_-- From nobody Tue Sep 23 23:42:49 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 124421A88EA for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 23:42:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 gm1R33WBbtHL for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 23:42:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 805871A8AAB for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 23:42:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.2]) by omfedm14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 3358922C59F; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:42:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Exchangemail-eme1.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.1.183]) by omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 08AE827C099; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:42:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::a441:e6a9:6143:6f0f]) by PEXCVZYH02.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:42:43 +0200 From: To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IPR Claims related to draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement Thread-Index: AQHP110UWlrIQihAb0++yZCGOEYOTpwP1o2g Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:42:42 +0000 Message-ID: <3779_1411540964_542267E4_3779_146_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A072037AD@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.197.38.4] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A072037ADPEXCVZYM11corpo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2014.6.25.100319 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/nfrcztNbmPCRXJGpvQ97hhVn7OM Cc: "spring@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:42:48 -0000 --_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A072037ADPEXCVZYM11corpo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Alvaro, I'm not aware of undisclosed IPR. Bruno From: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [mailto:aretana@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 8:35 PM To: draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org Cc: spring@ietf.org Subject: IPR Claims related to draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement Hi! In parallel to the WGLC for this draft, I want to formally ask the authors = (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version of the draft) = to please respond to this message indicating whether or not you are aware o= f any relevant IPR. So far there are no related disclosures. The draft wi= ll not progress (pending the results of the WGLC) until we have received a = response from each author. Thanks! Alvaro. ___________________________________________________________________________= ______________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu= ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el= ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou = falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf= ormation that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele= te this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been = modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. --_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A072037ADPEXCVZYM11corpo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Alvaro,

 <= /p>

I’m = not aware of undisclosed IPR.

 = ;

Bruno=

 = ;

From: Alvaro R= etana (aretana) [mailto:aretana@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 8:35 PM
To: draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: IPR Claims related to draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement

 

Hi!

 

In parallel to the WGLC for= this draft, I want to formally ask the authors (no additional contrib= utors are listed in the latest version of the draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether or not you are aware of any rel= evant IPR.  So far there are no related disclosures.  The draft w= ill not progress (pending the results of the WGLC) until we have received a= response from each author.

 

Thanks!

 

Alvaro.

 

______________________________________________________________________=
___________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden=
tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu=
 ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el=
ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou =
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf=
ormation that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele=
te this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been =
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
--_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A072037ADPEXCVZYM11corpo_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 01:17:48 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A29891A6F3F for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 01:17:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.635 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.635 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham 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 5L76F77M30Uk for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 01:17:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail23.telekom.de (tcmail23.telekom.de [80.149.113.243]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 030D11A1A33 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 01:17:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qdezc2.de.t-internal.com ([10.125.181.10]) by tcmail21.telekom.de with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2014 10:17:05 +0200 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,587,1406584800"; d="scan'208,217";a="140259799" Received: from he111631.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.23]) by qde0ps.de.t-internal.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 24 Sep 2014 10:17:04 +0200 Received: from HE113667.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([fe80::c943:1394:e86e:fce3]) by HE111631.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:17:04 +0200 From: To: , Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:17:04 +0200 Thread-Topic: IPR Claims related to draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement Thread-Index: AQHP110UWlrIQihAb0++yZCGOEYOTpwP8A6w Message-ID: <058CE00BD4D6B94FAD033A2439EA1E4B01E4FB5456E2@HE113667.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: de-DE Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_058CE00BD4D6B94FAD033A2439EA1E4B01E4FB5456E2HE113667eme_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/DeURM3PZdGZUljggfTEyVPrwYhk Cc: spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:17:44 -0000 --_000_058CE00BD4D6B94FAD033A2439EA1E4B01E4FB5456E2HE113667eme_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Alvaro, I am not aware of any IPR related to draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement. And as a co-author I support adoption of this draft. Best regards, Martin ________________________________ Von: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [mailto:aretana@cisco.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. September 2014 20:35 An: draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org Cc: spring@ietf.org Betreff: IPR Claims related to draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement Hi! In parallel to the WGLC for this draft, I want to formally ask the authors = (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version of the draft) = to please respond to this message indicating whether or not you are aware o= f any relevant IPR. So far there are no related disclosures. The draft wi= ll not progress (pending the results of the WGLC) until we have received a = response from each author. Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_058CE00BD4D6B94FAD033A2439EA1E4B01E4FB5456E2HE113667eme_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello=20 Alvaro,
 
I am not aware of any = IPR=20 related to draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement.
 
And as a co-author I s= upport=20 adoption of this draft.
 
Best regards,=20 Martin

Von: Alvaro Retana (aretana)=20 [mailto:aretana@cisco.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. September 2= 014=20 20:35
An:=20 draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org
Cc:=20 spring@ietf.org
Betreff: IPR Claims related to=20 draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement

Hi!

In parallel to the WGLC for this draft, I want to formally ask = the=20 authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version of t= he=20 draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether or not you ar= e=20 aware of any relevant IPR.  So far there are no related=20 disclosures.  The draft will not progress (pending the results of th= e=20 WGLC) until we have received a response from each author.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

--_000_058CE00BD4D6B94FAD033A2439EA1E4B01E4FB5456E2HE113667eme_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 02:00:23 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A4FB1A8F3C for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 02:00:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.286 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 t-50_x-1_4He for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 02:00:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 338411A8885 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 02:00:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9826; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1411549220; x=1412758820; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=4OCh2fdOAemttSFNiphPdKLzJynkXBqvJWTm1DVDNoY=; b=LtvuKBrR1hFmZafTgVIbzl+1WiIA7Bui4gzb+PDkfQdtqtCm92bMxA3h QZn44OtW1nycREMgX2oTMZaHMdRP/pmK8SZ6/f/xSpZXsaeKcXehi3tRe WrTE+w3NZ6E83fLfLWebAF40NTIuRx+R0IdLmFzE9tWOCbtv9Y2FlAKr0 M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkAFABmHIlStJV2T/2dsb2JhbABggkhGU1cEyE+BbYdNAYEIFgF6hAMBAQEEHRBMEAIBCBEBAwEBCx0HMhQDBggCBAENBQiINg3CWgEXj20xBgEGgyiBHQWPQ4IYhDqIaZNzg2JsgUiBAgEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.04,587,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="80755984" Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2014 09:00:19 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com [173.36.12.84]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8O90IVq032677 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:00:18 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.174]) by xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com ([173.36.12.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 04:00:18 -0500 From: "Roberta Maglione (robmgl)" To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement Thread-Index: AQHP11w9rAQHnD2yKkWCLDoCkokjgJwP82bg Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:00:17 +0000 Message-ID: <57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1ED4B681@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.102.88] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1ED4B681xmbrcdx01ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/entK7759VbVl-DhBTWFUx1g5eFM Cc: "draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:00:21 -0000 --_000_57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1ED4B681xmbrcdx01ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, This draft provides a clear description of the use cases and their requirem= ents. Just a minor comment: there are still few empty/TBD sections . I would suggest adding the following: 9. IANA Considerations This document does not require any action from IANA 10. Manageability Considerations I would point to spring architecture document for manageability considerati= ons, or remove this section. 11. Security Considerations The security considerations are described in Section 8. Other than that I support the advancement of this document. Regards Roberta From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (a= retana) Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 8:29 PM To: spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org Subject: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement Hi! As agreed at the last in person meeting, this message starts the Working Gr= oup Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement. This call will clos= e by EOD (pick your favorite time zone) on October 8, 2014. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement Please provide specific feedback as to why you support (or not) the advance= ment of this draft. Please avoid "+1"-type responses. Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1ED4B681xmbrcdx01ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

This draft provides a clear= description of the use cases and their requirements.

Just a minor comment: there= are still few empty/TBD sections .

 

I would suggest adding the = following:

9. IANA Considerations=

   This document = does not require any action from IANA

 

10. Manageability Considera= tions

I would point to spring arc= hitecture document for manageability considerations, or remove this section= .

 

11. Security Considerations=

The security considerations= are described in Section 8.

 

Other than that I support t= he advancement of this document.

Regards

Roberta

 <= /p>

From: spring [= mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (aretana)
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 8:29 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement<= /o:p>

 

Hi!

 

As agreed at the last in pe= rson meeting, this message starts the Working Group Last Call for draf= t-ietf-spring-problem-statement.  This call will close by EOD (pick your favorite time zone) on October 8, 2014.

 

 

Please provide specific fee= dback as to why you support (or not) the advancement of this draft.  P= lease avoid "+1"-type responses.  

 

Thanks!

 

Alvaro.

--_000_57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1ED4B681xmbrcdx01ciscoc_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 02:34:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD7AA1A1B6A for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 02:34:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 eSR__IFvOxe3 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 02:34:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x22e.google.com (mail-ig0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86B191A87E2 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 02:34:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ig0-f174.google.com with SMTP id r10so6180393igi.13 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 02:34:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=nIgU47VxqpiRGpYrVaIVD6pqDrgySULufwMIRPLXPF0=; b=QNTUJ+3uu/lEcPmyPmOsuAuk3wO9FL8ievZNiCXL76aP4PcHHrAO9IbnS0szKGx0RN odUcA0j1VQvOQ+boEWYxmHHEeXEcyhqTzPtbqoR5rLzpJOMbcANm+CpH/yIJzeoKSCBJ +fp7aqwfqo3hzKogHeRWAg1xGW8hIkhX7m8KXWc5DaIiRL0eWHNVQrff2VT1tsYyQisc 0zZlUEX/u2ofJf3El1EeePeJqruOiFFLecvLu8pCKVhW+JuwNvWU6CM/tHZdbkAmaXbh UvPbj0jUlK5z73RUk2efLcyRUBUgtFnbv2xyfCv5EFnOFHCfg0bFZRjZFTtH7xPzyAzT 1anw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.249.20 with SMTP id mi20mr8065438icb.90.1411551255930; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 02:34:15 -0700 (PDT) Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.166.8 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 02:34:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:34:15 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: MfDB2aa8vlM_ohxaQnjXF3F4lsI Message-ID: From: Robert Raszuk To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3011e125312d0d0503cc6381 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/nIEokM1VCosDLO_HbYVKAR2lmDw Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:34:18 -0000 --20cf3011e125312d0d0503cc6381 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Alvaro, And as a co-author I support advancement of this draft. As to your explicit question "why" - It describes set of valid problems to be solved. I am not aware of any IPR related to draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement. Best regards, Robert. On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > Hi! > > As agreed at the last in person meeting, this message starts the Working > Group Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement. This call will > close by EOD (pick your favorite time zone) on October 8, 2014. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement > > Please provide specific feedback as to why you support (or not) the > advancement of this draft. Please avoid "+1"-type responses. > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > --20cf3011e125312d0d0503cc6381 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Al= varo,
=C2=A0
And as a co-author I support advancement of this draft.

As to your = explicit question "why" - It describes set of valid problems to b= e solved.

I am not aware of any IPR related to draft-ietf-spring-problem-stat= ement.
=C2=A0
Best regards,=C2=A0
Robert.


On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Alvar= o Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com> wrote:
Hi!

As agreed at the last in person meet= ing, this message starts the Worki= ng Group Last Call for=C2=A0draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement.=C2= =A0 This call will close by EOD (pick your favorite time zone) on October 8, 2014.


Please provide specific feedback as to why you support (or not) the ad= vancement of this draft.=C2=A0 Please avoid "+1"-type responses. = =C2=A0

Thanks!

Alvaro.

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
= https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring


--20cf3011e125312d0d0503cc6381-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 06:03:27 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 559141A00D4 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:03:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.286 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 r0aq8TrkRxqW for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:03:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41AE81A00FB for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:01:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2181; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1411563696; x=1412773296; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=Ogkxw8F8cimJlTu2tPsrLsJAplOuyju6UjIuowtCBHg=; b=IFBTQT9Tw2QH8fzvzs9L2tmo1RhfZgyqDmNXfLshLTTISQGk/3oyj4VI a2CkWSeLRonWIXS4Qq4pyRy0ZhAy+aplhqKRffqdOmj47wTaJQk5BR+pu SDvUs3c5i6GpREL+P1LwaCDkpYRNUF7u/0U0rcwX5ZeJ3aJsPlNo4n+we s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhwUAF/AIlStJV2U/2dsb2JhbABggkhGU1gDhBnEPYFth02BCxYBeoQKHVwSAQwBDWYXEAQOiEMNwxYBF5AehFIFj0OCGIQ6hwiBYZNzg2KCNIECAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,589,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="357592410" Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2014 13:01:35 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com [173.36.12.79]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8OD1ZUX029432 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:01:35 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.9.183]) by xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com ([173.36.12.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:01:35 -0500 From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" To: "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thread-Index: AQHP1/erEVxtlwjKhU+FJUO3TO8y1w== Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:01:34 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.3] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D04838EC6B0B8aretanaciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/zfGvzSy86luCtZUceF9duTIPO5o Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:03:26 -0000 --_000_D04838EC6B0B8aretanaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spr= ing-segment-routing. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on Oc= tober 8, 2014. Some additional background: This draft presents the 'Segment Routing Archi= tecture'; it focuses on the terminology and general architecture. draft-fi= lsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls (for which there is separate call for ad= option) describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS data pla= ne. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_D04838EC6B0B8aretanaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2B84B1B25EE9B14D90B18DB3AAA79635@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi!

This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-fi= lsfils-spring-segment-routing.

Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day = on October 8, 2014.

Some additional background:  This draft presents the 'Segment Rou= ting Architecture'; it focuses on the terminology and general architecture.=  draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls (for which there is separ= ate call for adoption) describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS data plane.


Thanks!

Alvaro.
--_000_D04838EC6B0B8aretanaciscocom_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 06:04:07 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9D51A00D1 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:04:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.286 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 IerPEvfDzuqB for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:04:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C94CF1A00E0 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:03:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2114; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1411563807; x=1412773407; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=lI5N/ZS6z7HDmlBPO5YH+Kpk6acJeVlV6rXmOb/JfCc=; b=ZOGVibBoskjkUXJTGmhEUAcgU2tmYzSk9dRLiXwhS69eGSIgY7P+jGbo G3fJl/Ia5RALsbVxQsSCfiU4JIQpnr2kDdDHU+cbNqJgKctttLKuIJhWA C3uUKHF0KpYpyFW5mn1O1X//R0Al0vvodH23NF9D+Dib5HEUxot4lpTlI I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AoQFAB/AIlStJA2G/2dsb2JhbABggkhGU1gDuTCPJoFxh0mBCxYBeoQKHVwSAQwBcycEDohDDcMVAReQHoRSBY9DghiEOocIgWGTc4NigjSBAgEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,589,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="357809654" Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2014 13:03:27 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com [173.37.183.75]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8OD3RNh007156 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:03:27 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.9.183]) by xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([173.37.183.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:03:26 -0500 From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" To: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thread-Index: AQHP1/fub1imTrTArE2x/Y4xmYwLRw== Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:03:26 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.3] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D048395C6B0C8aretanaciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ExhOJQKTaaqO1H3xpCWDRSN7IkA Cc: "spring@ietf.org" Subject: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:04:05 -0000 --_000_D048395C6B0C8aretanaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! In parallel to the WG Adoption Call for this draft, I want to formally ask = the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version of= the draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether or not you= are aware of any relevant IPR beyond what has been already disclosed. The= draft will not progress (pending the results of the WG Adoption Call) unti= l we have received a response from each author. http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=3Ddocument_search&id=3Ddraft= -filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_D048395C6B0C8aretanaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <9596C6859C3B69469FD27B969F3A09B5@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi!

In parallel to the WG Adoption Call for this draft, I want to for= mally ask the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest = version of the draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether = or not you are aware of any relevant IPR beyond what has been already disclosed.  The draft will not progr= ess (pending the results of the WG Adoption Call) until we have received a = response from each author.


Thanks!

Alvaro.
--_000_D048395C6B0C8aretanaciscocom_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 06:07:46 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEB351A00CD for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:07:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.286 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 q2iiGqB4d10k for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:07:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A2971A00E0 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:07:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2096; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1411564056; x=1412773656; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=3PwzbuB4afVkuYzZKky16IHtWLUOBvEZDvJW7sy0Hn8=; b=d5o/FEIpvGQKIPk/xvssC8SV/ryMVpEDFPyfOelG5aOd2IlySbAa73XI kXil3k0Cj2bS81SyijFCAoUNuSjcYJQl8OhXHs+110eRDYAkFXY+0o9N2 fwe7z3BYf6hsaPjOGIIJb7E/rXR42NtEvPu3Sw+CaRLH9q72XwCTKsoP7 U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: An0FAMDBIlStJA2L/2dsb2JhbABggkhGU1gDyFaBbYdNgQsWAXqECh1cEgEMAQ1mFxAEDohDDcMcAReQHoRSBY9DghiEOocIgWGTc4NigjSBAgEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.04,589,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="80823558" Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2014 13:07:35 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com [173.36.12.78]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8OD7ZS3029057 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:07:35 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.9.183]) by xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com ([173.36.12.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:07:35 -0500 From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" To: "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thread-Index: AQHP1/iB/rpWjvUy80KKMiEjZbS5Rg== Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:07:34 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.3] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D0483A546B0DDaretanaciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/2UJ8aFbb4LLBe31DrBDG2FC5tV0 Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:07:43 -0000 --_000_D0483A546B0DDaretanaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spr= ing-segment-routing-mpls. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on Oc= tober 8, 2014. Some additional background: This draft describes the instantiation of Segm= ent Routing on the MPLS data plane. The Segment Routing Architecture is pr= esented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for which there is a sepa= rate call for adoption) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_D0483A546B0DDaretanaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <0EF68D91BD7756438F45F27CA8033FB9@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi!

This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-fi= lsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls.

Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day = on October 8, 2014.

Some additional background:  This draft describes the instan= tiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS data plane.  The Segment Routin= g Architecture is presented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for w= hich there is a separate call for adoption)


Thanks!

Alvaro.
--_000_D0483A546B0DDaretanaciscocom_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 06:08:24 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10D511A00E6 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:08:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.286 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 ZglAmSwNj22m for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:08:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5DED1A00E7 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:07:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1731; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1411564078; x=1412773678; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=9etVK1alFqT4AWF5VoBSpCJqy5BOw7w4Mz1yM0Nw/BE=; b=W5HGLrNBF1hOQTLokS184nQAOUWrmCL/iJSATm7LyFqKWbbC1wQoL4i+ nQWb4aOkekj/mmrA2exYQ6s5KCvGbZdm3gTuJy+0/PB6OYho7uovLyL0G l+SG+3AqOQx5gIbbYET4hATkHDStgqQgCm+PfrzUI8FO3IHyagsxy0bsr c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhUFAMDBIlStJA2B/2dsb2JhbABggkhGgS7SEIELFgF6g3oQHVwSAQsBdCcEDohDwykBF5AehFIFj0OCGItClVSDYoI0gQIBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,589,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="357813306" Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2014 13:07:57 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com [173.37.183.88]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8OD7vW7013082 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:07:57 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.9.183]) by xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([173.37.183.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:07:57 -0500 From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" To: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thread-Index: AQHP1/iPGeXWHBcyB0uy5DIe6qCkOQ== Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:07:57 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.3] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D0483A6A6B0E0aretanaciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/1aD9-sMUYBsQvkdxTfi3CFPM6Yg Cc: "spring@ietf.org" Subject: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:08:18 -0000 --_000_D0483A6A6B0E0aretanaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! In parallel to the WG Adoption Call for this draft, I want to formally ask = the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version of= the draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether or not you= are aware of any relevant IPR. So far there are no related disclosures. = The draft will not progress (pending the results of the WG Adoption Call) u= ntil we have received a response from each author. Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_D0483A6A6B0E0aretanaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <29C00187E5325845B6B5FD0A5DFA5DB2@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi!

In parallel to the WG Adoption Call for this draft, I want to for= mally ask the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest = version of the draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether = or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.  So far there are no related disclosures.  The draft will n= ot progress (pending the results of the WG Adoption Call) until we have rec= eived a response from each author.

Thanks!

Alvaro.
--_000_D0483A6A6B0E0aretanaciscocom_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 06:13:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21E581A0113 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:13:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 dMc87gYOxjhO for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:13:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EAE41A00F0 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:13:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.2]) by omfedm11.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 489323B4401; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:13:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Exchangemail-eme1.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.1.183]) by omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 2710927C07F; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:13:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::a441:e6a9:6143:6f0f]) by PEXCVZYH02.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:13:41 +0200 From: To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" Thread-Topic: IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thread-Index: AQHP1/fub1imTrTArE2x/Y4xmYwLR5wQQpGg Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:13:40 +0000 Message-ID: <11048_1411564422_5422C386_11048_863_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A07203E58@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.197.38.4] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A07203E58PEXCVZYM11corpo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2014.6.25.100319 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/tLZq0rvSGH7YBrmmC-nyg1abSFE Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:13:55 -0000 --_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A07203E58PEXCVZYM11corpo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Alvaro, I'm not aware of undisclosed IPR. Regards, Bruno From: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [mailto:aretana@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:03 PM To: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org Cc: spring@ietf.org Subject: IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Hi! In parallel to the WG Adoption Call for this draft, I want to formally ask = the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version of= the draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether or not you= are aware of any relevant IPR beyond what has been already disclosed. The= draft will not progress (pending the results of the WG Adoption Call) unti= l we have received a response from each author. http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=3Ddocument_search&id=3Ddraft= -filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thanks! Alvaro. ___________________________________________________________________________= ______________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu= ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el= ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou = falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf= ormation that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele= te this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been = modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. --_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A07203E58PEXCVZYM11corpo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Alvaro,=

 = ;

I’m = not aware of undisclosed IPR.

 = ;

Regards,

Bruno=

 <= /p>

From: Alvaro R= etana (aretana) [mailto:aretana@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:03 PM
To: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing=

 

Hi!

 

In parallel to the WG Adopt= ion Call for this draft, I want to formally ask the authors (no additi= onal contributors are listed in the latest version of the draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether or not you are aware = of any relevant IPR beyond what has been already disclosed.  The draft= will not progress (pending the results of the WG Adoption Call) until we h= ave received a response from each author.

 

 

Thanks!

 

Alvaro. 

______________________________________________________________________=
___________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden=
tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu=
 ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el=
ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou =
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf=
ormation that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele=
te this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been =
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
--_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A07203E58PEXCVZYM11corpo_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 06:14:24 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D28051A00D6 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:14:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 IgA-AaomaP7D for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:14:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97DCD1A00CA for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:14:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id DF1F222C9D9; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:14:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Exchangemail-eme1.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.1.186]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id AD3D0238074; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:14:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::a441:e6a9:6143:6f0f]) by PEXCVZYH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:14:17 +0200 From: To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thread-Index: AQHP1/iB/rpWjvUy80KKMiEjZbS5RpwQQutA Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:14:16 +0000 Message-ID: <8743_1411564457_5422C3A9_8743_163_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A07203E80@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.197.38.4] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A07203E80PEXCVZYM11corpo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2014.6.25.81224 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/H-2IUdmJiGZm-BB3CzpZdYgpikw Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:14:23 -0000 --_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A07203E80PEXCVZYM11corpo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Alvaro, I'm not aware of undisclosed IPR. Bruno From: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [mailto:aretana@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:08 PM To: spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org Subject: WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spr= ing-segment-routing-mpls. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on Oc= tober 8, 2014. Some additional background: This draft describes the instantiation of Segm= ent Routing on the MPLS data plane. The Segment Routing Architecture is pr= esented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for which there is a sepa= rate call for adoption) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thanks! Alvaro. ___________________________________________________________________________= ______________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu= ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el= ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou = falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf= ormation that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele= te this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been = modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. --_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A07203E80PEXCVZYM11corpo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Alvaro,=

 = ;

I’m = not aware of undisclosed IPR.

 = ;

Bruno=

 <= /p>

 <= /p>

From: Alvaro R= etana (aretana) [mailto:aretana@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:08 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org
Subject: WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-= mpls

 

Hi!

 

This message officially sta= rts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mp= ls.

 

Please indicate your positi= on about adopting this draft by end-of-day on October 8, 2014.

 

Some additional background:=  This draft describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on th= e MPLS data plane.  The Segment Routing Architecture is presented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for which there is a separate ca= ll for adoption)

 

 

Thanks!

 

Alvaro. 

______________________________________________________________________=
___________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden=
tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu=
 ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el=
ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou =
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf=
ormation that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele=
te this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been =
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
--_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A07203E80PEXCVZYM11corpo_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 06:15:32 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4699C1A00D6 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:15:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.685 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.685 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham 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 5kS7KBbBUMNv for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:15:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 730B91A00C0 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:15:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.42]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 035A71DBF0A00; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:15:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.112]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s8ODFM8H003556 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:15:24 +0200 Received: from FR711WXCHMBA07.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.52]) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.112]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:15:22 +0200 From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thread-Index: AQHP1/mXFzwZq0TcdUK8eTOX/D7R7A== Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:15:21 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.4.140807 x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.41] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D0488F8BF6ED7wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/WT_hc6p3dogH2lSof77Qm8HS0Lw Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:15:31 -0000 --_000_D0488F8BF6ED7wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I support adoption as a co-author. The document is complete to be adopted a= s WG doc From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" > Date: Wednesday 24 September 2014 15:07 To: "spring@ietf.org" > Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" > Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routin= g-mpls Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spr= ing-segment-routing-mpls. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on Oc= tober 8, 2014. Some additional background: This draft describes the instantiation of Segm= ent Routing on the MPLS data plane. The Segment Routing Architecture is pr= esented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for which there is a sepa= rate call for adoption) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_D0488F8BF6ED7wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <57ABB567F21798499535E46CCC72BC52@exchange.lucent.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I support adoption as a co-author. The document is complete to be adop= ted as WG doc

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)= " <aretana@cisco.com> Date: Wednesday 24 September 2014 1= 5:07
To: "spring@ietf.org" <= spring@ietf.org>
Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-s= egment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" <draft-filsfils-spring-se= gment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call = for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls

Hi!

This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-fi= lsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls.

Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day = on October 8, 2014.

Some additional background:  This draft describes the instan= tiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS data plane.  The Segment Routin= g Architecture is presented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for w= hich there is a separate call for adoption)


Thanks!

Alvaro.
 --_000_D0488F8BF6ED7wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 06:15:43 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B99651A00C0 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:15:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.286 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 dEL87zH8lbSq for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:15:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 277161A00FC for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:15:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4347; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1411564534; x=1412774134; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=CEYhZyUbyntji7ERIze/Mj1NVhghTWDowqLyc43Fu9c=; b=E0HM/15X/RwXESXEVPYyl8Qc5N0GICChAsi7Q8fJSiNyT3B6B8LZSTZK arnD07TpFawSY+u14oOj/PdyrAYCUAXjM4KxXkDwdN+2rMGGZIGWatwcv 7GeGYJZQ/WItI/SXaf16n4TiY4VRep8B9PlrRuNIazClGzTGiXz/fG2oK A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiAFAGXDIlStJV2S/2dsb2JhbABggkhGgSoE0hABgQoWAXqEBAEBBHkQAgEIEi0HMhQDDgIEAQ0FiD7DLgEXkB4HhEsFj0OCGItClVSDYmyBSIECAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.04,589,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="80772942" Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2014 13:15:33 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com [173.37.183.80]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8ODFXlw010110 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:15:33 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.9.183]) by xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([173.37.183.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:15:32 -0500 From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" To: "Roberta Maglione (robmgl)" , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement Thread-Index: AQHP11w9rAQHnD2yKkWCLDoCkokjgJwP82bggABh3wA= Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:15:32 +0000 Message-ID: References: <57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1ED4B681@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1ED4B681@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.3] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D0483B5A6B0EFaretanaciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/_ucaalWFX66hVNlBXfmTqCNSycA Cc: "draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:15:40 -0000 --_000_D0483B5A6B0EFaretanaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 9/24/14 5:00 AM, "Roberta Maglione (robmgl)" > wrote: Roberta: Hi! 10. Manageability Considerations I would point to spring architecture document for manageability considerati= ons, or remove this section. Given that this is the problem statement, we shouldn't be pointing to the a= rchitecture..but maybe the authors want to consider 'OAM Requirements for S= egment Routing Network' (draft-kumar-spring-sr-oam-requirement), which is v= ery sparse for my personal taste..or another suitable work in progress. Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_D0483B5A6B0EFaretanaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4BBDFFBB2191F14B87A1353DC178BFB5@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 9/24/14 5:00 AM, "Roberta Maglione (robmgl)" <robmgl@cisco.com> wrote:

Roberta:

Hi!

10. Manageability Considerations

I would point to spring architecture document for manageability cons= iderations, or remove this section.

Given that this is the problem state= ment, we shouldn't be pointing to the architecture..but maybe the authors w= ant to consider 'OAM Requirements for Segment Routing Network' (draft-kumar-spring-sr-oam-re= quirement), which is very sparse for my personal taste..or another suitable work in pr= ogress.

Thanks!

Alvaro. --_000_D0483B5A6B0EFaretanaciscocom_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 06:16:13 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7459C1A00FC for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:16:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.685 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.685 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham 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 biKtJm1-wl8y for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:16:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E96701A00B6 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:15:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.42]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 241C1D38232AB; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:15:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.112]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s8ODFvQP004975 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:15:57 +0200 Received: from FR711WXCHMBA07.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.52]) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.112]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:15:57 +0200 From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thread-Index: AQHP1/mt1rZrfxTXeUuW6Idq1vpNbw== Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:15:56 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.4.140807 x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.39] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D048909BF6EE9wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/4hbKXrboWSvBYY3dUQap6uN_g64 Cc: "spring@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:16:07 -0000 --_000_D048909BF6EE9wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I=92m not aware of undisclosed IPR. From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" > Date: Wednesday 24 September 2014 15:07 To: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" > Cc: "spring@ietf.org" > Subject: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routi= ng-mpls Hi! In parallel to the WG Adoption Call for this draft, I want to formally ask = the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version of= the draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether or not you= are aware of any relevant IPR. So far there are no related disclosures. = The draft will not progress (pending the results of the WG Adoption Call) u= ntil we have received a response from each author. Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_D048909BF6EE9wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <3E1315EA91C3EE43865B4EB03E494ACA@exchange.lucent.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I=92m not aw= are of undisclosed IPR.

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)= " <aretana@cisco.com> Date: Wednesday 24 September 2014 1= 5:07
To: "draft-filsfils-spring-s= egment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" <draft-filsfils-spring-se= gment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <= spring@ietf.org>
Subject: [spring] IPR Claims relate= d to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls

Hi!

In parallel to the WG Adoption Call for this draft, I want to for= mally ask the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest = version of the draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether = or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.  So far there are no related disclosures.  The draft will n= ot progress (pending the results of the WG Adoption Call) until we have rec= eived a response from each author.

Thanks!

Alvaro.
 --_000_D048909BF6EE9wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 06:21:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F2261A00EF for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:21:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.685 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.685 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham 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 Utev6ILRCCGj for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:21:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04D7C1A00CD for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:21:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.42]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 5F2506FB80520; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:21:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712wxchhub03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.74]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s8ODLnwN018137 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:21:52 +0200 Received: from FR711WXCHMBA07.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.52]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:21:51 +0200 From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thread-Index: AQHP1/erEVxtlwjKhU+FJUO3TO8y15wQRO2A Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:21:50 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.4.140807 x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.41] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D04891CAF6EF9wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/fJpi_D9EQ84OCxPuNDrwebRcFtk Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:21:56 -0000 --_000_D04891CAF6EF9wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I support adopting the draft as co-author. The draft describes the architec= ture well From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" > Date: Wednesday 24 September 2014 15:01 To: "spring@ietf.org" > Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" > Subject: WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Resent-From: > Resent-To: >, Bruno Decraene = >, Clarence Fil= sfil >, >, Igor Milojevic >, >, Martin Horneffer >, Rob Shakir = >, >, Stefano Previdi >, Stephane Litkowski >, Wim Henderickx > Resent-Date: Wednesday 24 September 2014 15:01 Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spr= ing-segment-routing. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on Oc= tober 8, 2014. Some additional background: This draft presents the 'Segment Routing Archi= tecture'; it focuses on the terminology and general architecture. draft-fi= lsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls (for which there is separate call for ad= option) describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS data pla= ne. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_D04891CAF6EF9wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <45E116A4687A3342B8D50FEB6E891916@exchange.lucent.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I support adopting the draft as co-author. The draft describes the arc= hitecture well

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)= " <aretana@cisco.com> Date: Wednesday 24 September 2014 1= 5:01
To: "spring@ietf.org" <= spring@ietf.org>
Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segmen= t-routing@tools.ietf.org" <draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@t= ools.ietf.org>
Subject: WG Adoption Call for draft= -filsfils-spring-segment-routing
Resent-From: <draft-alias-bounces@tools.ietf.org&= gt;
Resent-To: <bashandy@cisco.com>, Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, Clare= nce Filsfil <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, <edc@google.com>, Igor Milojev= ic <igormilojevic@telekom.rs= >, <jeff.tantsura@e= ricsson.com>, Martin Horneffer <martin.horneffer@telekom.de>, Rob Shakir <rob.shakir@bt.com&= gt;, <saku@ytti.fi>, Stefano Prev= idi <sprevidi@cisco.com>, S= tephane Litkowski <step= hane.litkowski@orange.com>, Wim Henderickx <wi= m.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>
Resent-Date: Wednesday 24 September= 2014 15:01

Hi!

This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-fi= lsfils-spring-segment-routing.

Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day = on October 8, 2014.

Some additional background:  This draft presents the 'Segment Rou= ting Architecture'; it focuses on the terminology and general architecture.=  draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls (for which there is separ= ate call for adoption) describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS data plane.


Thanks!

Alvaro.
 --_000_D04891CAF6EF9wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 06:29:00 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B2E81A00B9 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:28:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.287 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.287 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 DWv-Vbsjew5Q for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:28:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8FC71A00C9 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:28:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1521; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1411565335; x=1412774935; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=iHZyqGvnZv7tYwNTyZGenkdPk3S6ahE6ut8AFaT2qNs=; b=KVnVfoAqkPOxScWBqYKllvArxUa3SJPcqSueo026FadZAjsr2Qni+2Uz hJB1aDfK10W30ocsWQjblipsEvElQJIREoPpqZww5UF2zNTh0iZqyad2g lEKIJ7KGYS/9Atqka85RzrqI3J7W05YDUJttN5x0/00omrwrHP25v4veh o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhYIAH3GIlStJA2D/2dsb2JhbABggw6BKgTSDAICAYEKFgF6hAQBAQQ6TwIBCBIkBQsyFwUJAQEEARKIPsMwAReQJYRLAQSPQ4IYi0KVVIIfgUNsgUiBAgEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,589,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="354705203" Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2014 13:28:54 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com [173.37.183.80]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8ODSscx015457 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:28:54 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.9.183]) by xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([173.37.183.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:28:54 -0500 From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" To: Xuxiaohu , "" Thread-Topic: [spring] Request WG adoption polling//FW: The rationale of draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip Thread-Index: Ac+XNbvwgjeJ7UQ5TYug+cTuo+tEef//4xuA/82NaND/cLhiEP7IGUcQT2tCvwA= Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:28:53 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE082B6F65@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE082B6F65@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.3] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <37C48A633097BB4296AB3B52DACCA7BF@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/oBcQuBhaTmDjFQti-JuyG58bcZE Subject: Re: [spring] Request WG adoption polling//FW: The rationale of draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:28:57 -0000 On 9/17/14 3:26 AM, "Xuxiaohu" wrote: Xiaohu: Hi! Sorry for the delay.. >The rationale of this draft is simple and clear: for a given label >binding of FEC X learnt though IGPs, if the IGP next-hop for FEC X is a >non-SPRING node (i.e., just a normal IGP router which supports IP >forwarding), that label binding should be treated as it was remotely >learnt from the originating router of that label binding, just as if it >was learnt from a remote LDP peer or BGP peer. In other words, the packet >with such label as the top label should be tunneled towards that remote >peer via some type of IP-based tunnel. > >Such procedure is very useful for incremental deployment purpose and some >special use cases and therefore it should be specified somewhere. >Therefore we co-authors request you to issue a WG adoption poll on this >draft. Thanks. I don't doubt that we will be faced with incremental deployments and that a spring-based network will need to interact with existing networks. In fact, the charter already includes work on inter-working and coexistence. However, it is too early to consider this draft (or any other similar proposal) because we need to first adopt the architecture, to officially know what we'll have to make interoperate with something else.. In the meantime, please work on building interest on the use case (you mention "some special use cases" above, but I didn't see details in the draft) within the WG. Thanks! Alvaro. From nobody Wed Sep 24 06:29:48 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFEA31A00CD for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:29:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.286 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 EzwxoLMwwHjx for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:29:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E9091A00B9 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:29:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7426; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1411565383; x=1412774983; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=lUHjeqGx6hSs7oU6rmigUpMzwGPVyPrVMr65e4WoE7Q=; b=gwqY7TzJbC1KzPSQwxDeaOQhTZrE0oe8f+YCzo6+Zi0Aze79swW2CfZX 1skSDp1Ox7JZ7TYx/KI7QXYn+Unw1TKKjnl1gooBm/cZX4Y7gsQhepKwL tSgljt9S8zpJa8DIvg8PRR6OCKj3hmmcFREglsFMI6R0zZPblM1ysX5iO k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiIFAH3GIlStJV2U/2dsb2JhbABggkhGU1cE0hABgQoWAXqEAwEBAQQtTBACAQgRAQMBAQsdBzIUAwYIAgQBDQUIiDbDMAEXj20xBgGDLoEdBY9DghihFoNibIFIgQIBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,589,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="357820781" Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2014 13:29:42 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8ODTgpE017243 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:29:42 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.174]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:29:42 -0500 From: "Roberta Maglione (robmgl)" To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement Thread-Index: AQHP11w9rAQHnD2yKkWCLDoCkokjgJwP82bggABh3wD///KHkA== Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:29:42 +0000 Message-ID: <57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1ED4BAAE@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> References: <57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1ED4B681@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.102.88] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1ED4BAAExmbrcdx01ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/F_NO38mtSTXdu0cuZ5rgy2ijHyo Cc: "draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:29:45 -0000 --_000_57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1ED4BAAExmbrcdx01ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree with you. Thanks Roberta From: Alvaro Retana (aretana) Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:16 PM To: Roberta Maglione (robmgl); spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement On 9/24/14 5:00 AM, "Roberta Maglione (robmgl)" > wrote: Roberta: Hi! 10. Manageability Considerations I would point to spring architecture document for manageability considerati= ons, or remove this section. Given that this is the problem statement, we shouldn't be pointing to the a= rchitecture..but maybe the authors want to consider 'OAM Requirements for S= egment Routing Network' (draft-kumar-spring-sr-oam-requirement), which is v= ery sparse for my personal taste..or another suitable work in progress. Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1ED4BAAExmbrcdx01ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I agree with you.

Thanks<= /p>

Roberta=

 <= /p>

From: Alvaro R= etana (aretana)
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:16 PM
To: Roberta Maglione (robmgl); spring@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement=

 

On 9/24/14 5:00 AM, "R= oberta Maglione (robmgl)" <robm= gl@cisco.com> wrote:

 

Roberta:<= /p>

 

Hi!

 

10. Manageability Considerations

I would point to spring architecture document for = manageability considerations, or remove this section.

 

Given that this is the problem statement, we shouldn't b= e pointing to the architecture..but maybe the authors want to consider 'OAM= Requirements for Segment Routing Network' (draft-kumar-spring-sr-oam-requi= rement), which is very sparse for my personal taste..or another suitable work in pr= ogress.

 

Thanks!

 

Alvaro.

--_000_57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1ED4BAAExmbrcdx01ciscoc_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 06:43:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 222B51A010F for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:43:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham 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 lGGbfi-iBF5r for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:43:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f176.google.com (mail-ie0-f176.google.com [209.85.223.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AD341A0105 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:43:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f176.google.com with SMTP id ar1so11078530iec.7 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:43:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=HFFrLJOTOzPXvt4EXr+bJxsJQmrx+kIBsVLSeNxHyuw=; b=aYNK93XJKswFwDfm1guXcR79sOiw3OM+e5PFZwfTbmGCE+d87RlN8mw4POOmiUHz+m 4KHcX6WCeEIfYtd/JenDADpkwYjJMayiySNdrfXaqjSTXQoM+k0zkTPx+ACONlA01wOM 7bZn9BMbgOjmXGxl8dogGvb9By3gPqxGjp9k/uLB91uglnjO2iaal0OzenC7LZesob7x PL0hyuhP0onihF2V90gtU6cf7DiAbW8sQxWYpkTErqtcsvxQx3ObbYzfW37Lxw4mJDSk 4TYbKjBo2lcXMD8GIkiBRcU1M9o44AeVD9VhRWwi+3f1JSk72xNFO+CE9pPYpyxFej7M 2ssQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnChMIGzye39oGqOsEfsNQrPWCpOjSEw6kxyiMkzuLZkOnXZ7THeqKx1D0A9x/5WFcY4RCo MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.23.78 with SMTP id k14mr30117239igf.15.1411566234523; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:43:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.134.193 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:43:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:43:54 +0300 Message-ID: From: Saku Ytti To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/kxyTpsMmNK0I7vChYJncMEifvNw Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" , "spring@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:43:57 -0000 Not aware of any IPR. On 24 September 2014 16:03, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > Hi! > > In parallel to the WG Adoption Call for this draft, I want to formally ask > the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version of > the draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether or not you > are aware of any relevant IPR beyond what has been already disclosed. The > draft will not progress (pending the results of the WG Adoption Call) until > we have received a response from each author. > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&id=draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. -- ++ytti From nobody Wed Sep 24 06:49:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAAEE1A011D for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:49:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 8Ay4u0mpAz_7 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:49:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias245.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.245]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A83DF1A0105 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:49:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfeda08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.201]) by omfeda11.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 1FB801B86E8; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:49:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Exchangemail-eme1.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.1.186]) by omfeda08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 0177238404A; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:49:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::a441:e6a9:6143:6f0f]) by PEXCVZYH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:49:44 +0200 From: To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thread-Index: AQHP1/iB/rpWjvUy80KKMiEjZbS5RpwQQwMg Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:49:44 +0000 Message-ID: <29340_1411566585_5422CBF9_29340_7782_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A0720402C@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.197.38.4] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A0720402CPEXCVZYM11corpo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2014.9.24.114819 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/mg3jrmWpJS395TSDo6TC6QaNTtc Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:49:54 -0000 --_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A0720402CPEXCVZYM11corpo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, (as a co-author) I support working group adoption. This document defines how the SPRING architecture can be applied to MPLS wi= th existing hardware & networks and quite limited impact to MPLS sub-part (= e.g. OAM & loadbalancing). IMO this is a very applicable declination of the= SPRING architecture. More specific comments: - Eventually, the doc could list such "additional" MPLS requirements (e.g. = hardware/software ability to push more labels on the ingress, load-balancin= g considerations in transit, OAM extensions...). Eventually in the section = 8 "Manageability considerations" which is currently empty. - Last sentence of section 6 "Segment List History" is eventually historic = and need to be removed/updated. - Security consideration needs to be written. A priori, as the MPLS princip= le are unchanged, MPLS SPRING probably does not change much the security co= nsideration of MPLS networks therefore IMO this is not blocking for WG adop= tion. Existing doc on security may need to be referenced, e.g. RFC 5920 "Se= curity Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks", may be saying that as LDP se= ssions are removed, LDP security aspects (as discussed in RFC 5036 and RFC = 6952) no longer need to be considered. Thanks, Regards, Bruno From: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [mailto:aretana@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:08 PM To: spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org Subject: WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spr= ing-segment-routing-mpls. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on Oc= tober 8, 2014. Some additional background: This draft describes the instantiation of Segm= ent Routing on the MPLS data plane. The Segment Routing Architecture is pr= esented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for which there is a sepa= rate call for adoption) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thanks! Alvaro. ___________________________________________________________________________= ______________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu= ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el= ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou = falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf= ormation that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele= te this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been = modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. --_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A0720402CPEXCVZYM11corpo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

 <= /p>

(as a co-a= uthor) I support working group adoption.

 = ;

This docum= ent defines how the SPRING architecture can be applied to MPLS with existin= g hardware & networks and quite limited impact to MPLS sub-part (e.g. OAM & loadbalancing). IMO this is a very applicable declination = of the SPRING architecture.

 = ;

More speci= fic comments:

- Eventual= ly, the doc could list such “additional” MPLS requirements (e.g= . hardware/software ability to push more labels on the ingress, load-balanc= ing considerations in transit, OAM extensions…). Eventually in the secti= on 8 “Manageability considerations” which is currently empty.

- Last sen= tence of section 6 “Segment List History” is eventually histori= c and need to be removed/updated.

- Security= consideration needs to be written. A priori, as the MPLS principle are unc= hanged, MPLS SPRING probably does not change much the security consideration of MPLS networks therefore IMO this is not blocking for WG a= doption. Existing doc on security may need to be referenced, e.g. RFC 5920 = “Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks”, may be saying= that as LDP sessions are removed, LDP security aspects (as discussed in RFC 5036 and RFC 6952) no longer need to be consi= dered.

 = ;

Thanks,

Regards,

Bruno=

 = ;

 = ;

From: Alvaro R= etana (aretana) [mailto:aretana@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:08 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org
Subject: WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-= mpls

 

Hi!

 

This message officially sta= rts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mp= ls.

 

Please indicate your positi= on about adopting this draft by end-of-day on October 8, 2014.

 

Some additional background:=  This draft describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on th= e MPLS data plane.  The Segment Routing Architecture is presented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for which there is a separate ca= ll for adoption)

 

 

Thanks!

 

Alvaro. 

______________________________________________________________________=
___________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden=
tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu=
 ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el=
ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou =
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf=
ormation that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele=
te this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been =
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
--_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A0720402CPEXCVZYM11corpo_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 06:55:24 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07CA71A0123 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:55:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 lB4Pcv-v5Yh6 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:55:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias244.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.244]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F24F1A011D for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:55:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfeda05.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.198]) by omfeda12.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id ADE9A3B475E; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:55:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Exchangemail-eme1.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.1.183]) by omfeda05.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 8D676180067; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:55:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::a441:e6a9:6143:6f0f]) by PEXCVZYH02.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:55:09 +0200 From: To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thread-Index: AQHP1/erEVxtlwjKhU+FJUO3TO8y15wQTO/g Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:55:08 +0000 Message-ID: <22394_1411566912_5422CD40_22394_3026_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A07204060@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.197.38.4] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A07204060PEXCVZYM11corpo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2014.9.24.114819 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/tzTcIvByE-wOgJyqAZtbTL6Vhho Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:55:23 -0000 --_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A07204060PEXCVZYM11corpo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, (as a co-author) I support adoption of this document defining the segment r= outing architecture and terminology. Bruno From: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [mailto:aretana@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:02 PM To: spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org Subject: WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spr= ing-segment-routing. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on Oc= tober 8, 2014. Some additional background: This draft presents the 'Segment Routing Archi= tecture'; it focuses on the terminology and general architecture. draft-fi= lsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls (for which there is separate call for ad= option) describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS data pla= ne. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thanks! Alvaro. ___________________________________________________________________________= ______________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu= ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el= ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou = falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf= ormation that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele= te this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been = modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. --_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A07204060PEXCVZYM11corpo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

 = ;

(as a co-a= uthor) I support adoption of this document defining the segment routing arc= hitecture and terminology.

 = ;

Bruno=

 = ;

From: Alvaro R= etana (aretana) [mailto:aretana@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:02 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org
Subject: WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing<= o:p>

 

Hi!

 

This message officially sta= rts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing.

 

Please indicate your positi= on about adopting this draft by end-of-day on October 8, 2014.

 

Some additional background:=  This draft presents the 'Segment Routing Architecture'; it focuses o= n the terminology and general architecture.  draft-filsfils-spring-seg= ment-routing-mpls (for which there is separate call for adoption) describes the instantiatio= n of Segment Routing on the MPLS data plane.

 

 

Thanks!

 

Alvaro. 

______________________________________________________________________=
___________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden=
tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu=
 ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el=
ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou =
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf=
ormation that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele=
te this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been =
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
--_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A07204060PEXCVZYM11corpo_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 07:00:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E62141A0127 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 07:00:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.635 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.635 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham 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 7ne2Uun_OVej for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 07:00:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail13.telekom.de (tcmail13.telekom.de [80.149.113.165]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 556851A00E4 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:59:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from s4de8nsazdfe010.bmbg.telekom.de ([10.175.246.202]) by tcmail11.telekom.de with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2014 15:59:56 +0200 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,589,1406584800"; d="scan'208,217";a="536146527" Received: from he113470.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.128]) by q4de8nsa015.bmbg.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 24 Sep 2014 15:59:53 +0200 Received: from HE113667.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([fe80::c943:1394:e86e:fce3]) by HE113470.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:59:53 +0200 From: To: , Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:59:52 +0200 Thread-Topic: IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thread-Index: AQHP1/iPGeXWHBcyB0uy5DIe6qCkOZwQSFKQ Message-ID: <058CE00BD4D6B94FAD033A2439EA1E4B01E4FB545B84@HE113667.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: de-DE Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_058CE00BD4D6B94FAD033A2439EA1E4B01E4FB545B84HE113667eme_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/7bV3xeyuQtZ3u-lTaQtw8RBXYCQ Cc: spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:00:03 -0000 --_000_058CE00BD4D6B94FAD033A2439EA1E4B01E4FB545B84HE113667eme_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Alvaro, I am not aware of any IPR related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-= mpls. And as a co-author I support adoption of this draft. Best regards, Martin ________________________________ Von: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [mailto:aretana@cisco.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. September 2014 15:08 An: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org Cc: spring@ietf.org Betreff: IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Hi! In parallel to the WG Adoption Call for this draft, I want to formally ask = the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version of= the draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether or not you= are aware of any relevant IPR. So far there are no related disclosures. = The draft will not progress (pending the results of the WG Adoption Call) u= ntil we have received a response from each author. Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_058CE00BD4D6B94FAD033A2439EA1E4B01E4FB545B84HE113667eme_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Alvaro,
 
I am not aware of any IPR re= lated=20 to=20 draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls.
 
And as a=20 co-author I support adoption of this draft.
 
Best regards,=20 Martin

Von: Alvaro Retana (aretana)=20 [mailto:aretana@cisco.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. September 2= 014=20 15:08
An:=20 draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org
Cc:=20 spring@ietf.org
Betreff: IPR Claims related to=20 draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls

Hi!

In parallel to the WG Adoption Call for this draft, I want to=20 formally ask the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the la= test=20 version of the draft) to please respond to this message indicating whethe= r or=20 not you are aware of any relevant IPR.  So far there are no related= =20 disclosures.  The draft will not progress (pending the results of th= e WG=20 Adoption Call) until we have received a response from each author.

Thanks!

Alvaro.
--_000_058CE00BD4D6B94FAD033A2439EA1E4B01E4FB545B84HE113667eme_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 07:00:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B36101A0137 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 07:00:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.635 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.635 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham 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 hQaXlsuWa3Qa for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 07:00:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail13.telekom.de (tcmail13.telekom.de [80.149.113.165]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B85F71A00E4 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 07:00:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from s4de8nsazdfe010.bmbg.telekom.de ([10.175.246.202]) by tcmail11.telekom.de with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2014 15:59:56 +0200 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,589,1406584800"; d="scan'208,217";a="536146535" Received: from he113445.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.105]) by q4de8nsa015.bmbg.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 24 Sep 2014 15:59:54 +0200 Received: from HE113667.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([fe80::c943:1394:e86e:fce3]) by HE113445.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:59:54 +0200 From: To: , Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:59:53 +0200 Thread-Topic: IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thread-Index: AQHP1/fub1imTrTArE2x/Y4xmYwLR5wQSC9Q Message-ID: <058CE00BD4D6B94FAD033A2439EA1E4B01E4FB545B85@HE113667.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: de-DE Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_058CE00BD4D6B94FAD033A2439EA1E4B01E4FB545B85HE113667eme_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/PH1A4HsuNKFUpox6MU5pGFvW_-s Cc: spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:00:19 -0000 --_000_058CE00BD4D6B94FAD033A2439EA1E4B01E4FB545B85HE113667eme_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Alvaro, I am not aware of any IPR related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing. And as a co-author I support adoption of this draft. Best regards, Martin ________________________________ Von: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [mailto:aretana@cisco.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. September 2014 15:03 An: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org Cc: spring@ietf.org Betreff: IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Hi! In parallel to the WG Adoption Call for this draft, I want to formally ask = the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version of= the draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether or not you= are aware of any relevant IPR beyond what has been already disclosed. The= draft will not progress (pending the results of the WG Adoption Call) unti= l we have received a response from each author. http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=3Ddocument_search&id=3Ddraft= -filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_058CE00BD4D6B94FAD033A2439EA1E4B01E4FB545B85HE113667eme_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Alvaro,
 
I am not aware of any IPR related to=20 draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing.
 
And as a co-author I su= pport=20 adoption of this draft.
 
Best regards, Martin
 

Von: Alvaro Retana (aretana)=20 [mailto:aretana@cisco.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. September 2= 014=20 15:03
An:=20 draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org
Cc:=20 spring@ietf.org
Betreff: IPR Claims related to=20 draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing

Hi!

In parallel to the WG Adoption Call for this draft, I want to=20 formally ask the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the la= test=20 version of the draft) to please respond to this message indicating whethe= r or=20 not you are aware of any relevant IPR beyond what has been already disclo= sed.=20  The draft will not progress (pending the results of the WG Adoption= =20 Call) until we have received a response from each author.

http://datatracker.ietf.org= /ipr/search/?option=3Ddocument_search&id=3Ddraft-filsfils-spring-segmen= t-routing

Thanks!

Alvaro.
--_000_058CE00BD4D6B94FAD033A2439EA1E4B01E4FB545B85HE113667eme_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 07:14:10 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ED341A0158 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 07:14:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.312 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 JDygV3wEl-gi for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 07:14:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-f45.google.com (mail-la0-f45.google.com [209.85.215.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFD491A0162 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 07:13:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f45.google.com with SMTP id el20so4333398lab.32 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 07:13:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=GY6rQaQP9dJXHG+UNkaC5aVrctjvAahcWIHZWE+QV6A=; b=M3T6vOAmNBB2VH1WDsndnYEwzicpHVSI6xDNaDqfW2WcqPboznAqsWtdJmDDFvGzew 8xpHMJ8xlEeSkMD23dbUn1J0LJWVbx04UBmhJbH+E8ftfjHV2Fx1uP4IyVXU4C4//jUB 5487aB+PqEyOKORQS+Vhag8LmHXlqQpKbOw/4Ot6a0V/Z0sdzglJCmzCi6/mnz7m/9hh NJuksUok9HGZG/uNrHPTntK3qMXLSmNz04YNZG9bsoWIJPhjEe+nkyD5310pmGEE7dfC 9Yu4dyUTlYHewePcLafwLXDuwGAOv8T0VWZgEVJuNEit8DMyvNRFmPaYwaAtlAv83nXa eGJA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmaTwaAESM1fVAs3eZOJAL1GbJjTcI0530HOABMyP/EJXyaZM/IJsqsTNwLyEFiGI/Abd1t MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.206.101 with SMTP id ln5mr6854758lac.46.1411568033086; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 07:13:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.150.73 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 07:13:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [2607:fea8:840:0:d1e:c998:2597:b76c] Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:13:53 -0400 Message-ID: From: Ida Leung To: spring@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11349a743052820503d04b3f Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/Mk8OQa6XDPEDfUlWzRydTaDoWVM Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:14:06 -0000 --001a11349a743052820503d04b3f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I support the adoption of this draft. This draft has clearly stated the problems some of the service providers network have. Thanks, ...Ida --001a11349a743052820503d04b3f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I support the adoption of this draft.=C2=A0 This draft has= clearly stated the problems some of the service providers network have. = =C2=A0

Thanks,

...Ida
--001a11349a743052820503d04b3f-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 07:48:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 042E31A0144 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 07:48:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.287 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.287 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 mfruzX9-KeWD for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 07:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C27F61A011D for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 07:48:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=758; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1411570094; x=1412779694; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Kt7/SpCR0zIZIwTQcmzZxlTW5HtgBtQpEHqpUP/+6NY=; b=RHOJrdZbxjvBfaAn6NGD57UN0ACMWAqoPlZZ3/xqCcKakoKgxVBbheiK uikLq496wO5k/LujSKzgLS6swRNzwp2PDy8oUT44NQ1D0SvPhM/DHPg8I j1oOK2KDYsw4cDgU1OJg6sIGSOrkz8o5YX35jq1qXQhsCceIwjbEGvRaH 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlEFAL/YIlStJA2N/2dsb2JhbABggw5TTQsDykSHTQGBBhYBeoQEAQEDAR0dPwULAgEIEiQQMhcOAgQOiDsIDcMgARePazMHgy6BHQWRW4Q6hwiBYZNzg2KCNIECAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,589,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="357798729" Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2014 14:48:13 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com [173.37.183.88]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8OEmC93016484 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:48:12 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.174]) by xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([173.37.183.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:48:12 -0500 From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thread-Index: AQHP1/erEVxtlwjKhU+FJUO3TO8y15wQsP+A Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:48:11 +0000 Message-ID: <34BFEB9B-E8E4-4F5D-8492-BEF2559D5C29@cisco.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.147.74.72] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/akxWez1J6rTJTOmrwtesIKdAc08 Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:48:18 -0000 I support the draft as co-author. s. On Sep 24, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > Hi! >=20 > This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-s= pring-segment-routing. >=20 > Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on = October 8, 2014. >=20 > Some additional background: This draft presents the 'Segment Routing Arc= hitecture'; it focuses on the terminology and general architecture. draft-= filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls (for which there is separate call for = adoption) describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS data p= lane. >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Alvaro. From nobody Wed Sep 24 07:48:27 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8C6F1A013B for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 07:48:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.287 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.287 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 4JoI7L4XEKw4 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 07:48:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CF751A0123 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 07:48:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=851; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1411570097; x=1412779697; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=nbfcenT5saRUhdRr9Mq7fjSeZf8zpDiZUXHxRZhKARM=; b=Jv8zTFLLjucv1A65xifjMAFhhm+j2uYWeyl+0A00aiGEwZuyML01MZAI HocuOE/GFXsjZsdTAAUA1CPg7OgAkTkuDsA+sPOXl5CewjHqDJ3Im8Ih8 xsJxk1rxLvIKPgNmQJJU87CfinsHebrGgTFEZP+c+R3MDCzUhG6O0EjI3 E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhYFAL/YIlStJA2M/2dsb2JhbABggw5TTQoEyjoKhnlUAYEGFgF6hAQBAQMBAQEBGh00CwULAgEIEiQQJwsXDgIEDgWINggNwyABF49rMweDLoEdBZFbhDqHCIFhk3ODYmyBSIECAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,589,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="357798760" Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2014 14:48:16 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8OEmGUE018796 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:48:16 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.174]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:48:15 -0500 From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" Thread-Topic: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thread-Index: AQHP1/iB/rpWjvUy80KKMiEjZbS5RpwQsQMA Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:48:14 +0000 Message-ID: <2BC2A092-92AA-4ADA-806D-827FC9D2AE96@cisco.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.147.74.72] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/gpAxR7sitIJFbT-BoxSXwFJL3ks Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:48:20 -0000 I support the draft as co-author. s. On Sep 24, 2014, at 3:07 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > Hi! >=20 > This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-s= pring-segment-routing-mpls. >=20 > Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on = October 8, 2014. >=20 > Some additional background: This draft describes the instantiation of Se= gment Routing on the MPLS data plane. The Segment Routing Architecture is = presented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for which there is a se= parate call for adoption) >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Alvaro. > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring From nobody Wed Sep 24 08:18:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AD3D1A01CB for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:18:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.286 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 oP0AC4Eif-dF for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:18:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84E701A017C for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:18:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7305; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1411571890; x=1412781490; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=sxmfh1QDOLveBE6hCEq5dXt/qAjLOAdlCyUnNYvNriQ=; b=BC8bYUX+dDFKH8DS47dYZQaJQ+S2WaIk0QeEAYQY+cbAPr8LDc1djkEV 2eATghmXYkIQoCbyUCb8AtmalzTlUXcwGXNJi0a0kXyH8pFJ7CH3c2hjT 2+Kojppjs8ZUJD2PINXgyQ/rwNuSSGI8PE54/N7y1BpX98Z4Y5nahtxB9 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkAFAEDgIlStJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABggkhGU1cEyFeBbYdNAYEGFgF6hAMBAQEEHRBMEAIBCBEBAwEBCx0HMhQDBggCBA4FCIg2DcMpARePbTEGAQaDKIEdBY9DghiEOohpk3ODYmyBSIECAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.04,589,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="80871969" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2014 15:18:09 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8OFI8Uo017734 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:18:08 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.174]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:18:08 -0500 From: "Roberta Maglione (robmgl)" To: "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thread-Index: AQHP1/erEVxtlwjKhU+FJUO3TO8y15wQZUsg Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:18:07 +0000 Message-ID: <57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1ED4CCE6@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.102.88] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1ED4CCE6xmbrcdx01ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/RmZ3oMOwlDecYM9BOjFlRgoQP8s Cc: "Alvaro Retana \(aretana\)" , "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:18:13 -0000 --_000_57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1ED4CCE6xmbrcdx01ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I support the adoption of this draft Regards Roberta From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (a= retana) Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:02 PM To: spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routin= g Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spr= ing-segment-routing. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on Oc= tober 8, 2014. Some additional background: This draft presents the 'Segment Routing Archi= tecture'; it focuses on the terminology and general architecture. draft-fi= lsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls (for which there is separate call for ad= option) describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS data pla= ne. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1ED4CCE6xmbrcdx01ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I support the adoption of= this draft

Regards=

Roberta=

 <= /p>

From: spring [= mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (aretana)
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:02 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment= -routing

 

Hi!

 

This message officially sta= rts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing.

 

Please indicate your positi= on about adopting this draft by end-of-day on October 8, 2014.

 

Some additional background:=  This draft presents the 'Segment Routing Architecture'; it focuses o= n the terminology and general architecture.  draft-filsfils-spring-seg= ment-routing-mpls (for which there is separate call for adoption) describes the instantiatio= n of Segment Routing on the MPLS data plane.

 

 

Thanks!

 

Alvaro.

--_000_57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1ED4CCE6xmbrcdx01ciscoc_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 08:19:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BEF31A01D5 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:19:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.286 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 R_S4weWs8Wbc for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:19:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 945C41A016D for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:19:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7402; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1411571974; x=1412781574; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=BIqckffm6ZHpRIHPq93stXhgWkEs1WkCFyxIZCWcssg=; b=HGTy6T/sYjHZAciUAcdxPjpusjEytKxd3V2tlKdKKjHXSF497xxKLELO I2/NdVxlJR3k85EYtbVXEdYlKa/siUBgrrZm1LLU8vPRnG182DtvK+zpp soGGiTZLPqgJ1aQwEJc3o5c+JRhSz2uMBAyvEfE4MS4AP1V8Mil3cQ4Si k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkAFAP/fIlStJV2d/2dsb2JhbABggkhGU1cEyFeBbYdNAYEGFgF6hAMBAQEEHRBMEgEIEQEDAQELHTkUAwYJAQQOBQiINg3DKAEXj20xBgeDKIEdBY9DghiEOohpk3ODYmyBSIECAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,589,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="357854300" Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2014 15:19:31 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8OFJUC7002002 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:19:30 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.174]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:19:30 -0500 From: "Roberta Maglione (robmgl)" To: "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thread-Index: Ac/YCu3xp+U9ulqkQPui6NPSbf0Mxw== Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:19:30 +0000 Message-ID: <57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1ED4CD48@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.102.88] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1ED4CD48xmbrcdx01ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/zYypnhTrRhNaFYGzHsajS19ZQKo Cc: "Alvaro Retana \(aretana\)" , "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:19:36 -0000 --_000_57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1ED4CD48xmbrcdx01ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I support the adoption of this draft Regards Roberta From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (a= retana) Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:08 PM To: spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routin= g-mpls Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spr= ing-segment-routing-mpls. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on Oc= tober 8, 2014. Some additional background: This draft describes the instantiation of Segm= ent Routing on the MPLS data plane. The Segment Routing Architecture is pr= esented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for which there is a sepa= rate call for adoption) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1ED4CD48xmbrcdx01ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I support the adoption of= this draft

Regards=

Roberta=

 <= /p>

 <= /p>

From: spring [= mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (aretana)
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:08 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment= -routing-mpls

 

Hi!

 

This message officially sta= rts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mp= ls.

 

Please indicate your positi= on about adopting this draft by end-of-day on October 8, 2014.

 

Some additional background:=  This draft describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on th= e MPLS data plane.  The Segment Routing Architecture is presented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for which there is a separate ca= ll for adoption)

 

 

Thanks!

 

Alvaro.

--_000_57C3345230A4F94C9B2F5CFA05D7F2BD1ED4CD48xmbrcdx01ciscoc_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 08:49:54 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B251A0183 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:49:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 EQMAPx4KEGXu for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:49:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 018A31A015F for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:49:48 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c6180641-f79916d00000623a-3f-54228f7b9c93 Received: from EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.96]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 9C.FF.25146.B7F82245; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:31:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB109.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.126]) by EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.96]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:49:46 -0400 From: Jeff Tantsura To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thread-Index: AQHP1/erEVxtlwjKhU+FJUO3TO8y15wQPC8A Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:49:46 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.3.140616 x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.12] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D048362B73A3Ejefftantsuraericssoncom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprBIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPgm5Nv1KIwf/D7BZ/f25ltJj5/zOL xfELvxkdmD2m/N7I6rFkyU8mjy+XP7MFMEdx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZSyd8I2p4IRxxfbXr5ka GC/qdTFyckgImEic/3OdHcIWk7hwbz0biC0kcJRRYvq/4C5GLiB7OaPExO8bWUESbAIGEv+/ HWcBsUUEIiSuLjsJFmcWKJY4e+gLcxcjB4ewgLvElF52iBIPiRWTfjOBhEUEjCTmN6SDhFkE VCW+NV0BW8UrYC5xes4CqLV6En/X3GEGsTkF9CV+n10ENp0R6LTvp9YwQWwSl7j1ZD4TxMkC Ekv2nGeGsEUlXj7+B1YvCjTn05RzUDVKEnNeX2OG6I2RWHr1FivEXkGJkzOfsExgFJuFZOws JGWzkJRBxHUkFuz+xAZha0ssW/iaGcY+c+AxVK+1xNEtc5iQ1Sxg5FjFyFFanFqWm25kuIkR GJXHJNgcdzAu+GR5iFGAg1GJhzfhrWKIEGtiWXFl7iFGaQ4WJXFezep5wUIC6YklqdmpqQWp RfFFpTmpxYcYmTg4pRoYNc8xLLsn26714sznYz9l+1nem5fdiVcWY947zyP97N1PF7S53jW3 JebqV7H2rrS9kcnornnoxTfDnJLVHNNfxJgnzX2ww2K2sGSezYzN/11PrtQ+uS1m45Vbzi3O gu21728k5LSlbJ46zy1O/apV26ej6bX97zf9nXhMWfXoJhUR44evyvMMlViKMxINtZiLihMB keIa76sCAAA= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/udiwTGZCJTbZ345yQqjeefZMu00 Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:49:51 -0000 --_000_D048362B73A3Ejefftantsuraericssoncom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Alvaro, Support as co-author. Cheers, Jeff From: Alvaro Retana > Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 at 6:01 AM To: "spring@ietf.org" > Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" > Subject: WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Resent-To: >, >, Clarence Filsfils >, >, >, Jeff Tan= tsura >, >, >, >, >, >, Wim Henderickx > Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spr= ing-segment-routing. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on Oc= tober 8, 2014. Some additional background: This draft presents the 'Segment Routing Archi= tecture'; it focuses on the terminology and general architecture. draft-fi= lsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls (for which there is separate call for ad= option) describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS data pla= ne. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_D048362B73A3Ejefftantsuraericssoncom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <65B154C31AC0B74EA1A836CB389B7B0D@ericsson.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Alvaro,

Support as co-author.

Cheers,
Jeff

From: Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2014= at 6:01 AM
To: "spring@ietf.org" <= spring@ietf.org>
Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segmen= t-routing@tools.ietf.org" <draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@t= ools.ietf.org>
Subject: WG Adoption Call for draft= -filsfils-spring-segment-routing
Resent-To: <bashandy@cisco.com>, <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, Clarence Filsfils &l= t;cfilsfil@cisco.com>, <edc@google.com>, <igormilojevic@telekom.rs>, Jeff= Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@e= ricsson.com>, <mar= tin.horneffer@telekom.de>, <rob.shakir@bt.com>, <saku@ytti.fi>, <sprevidi@cisco.com>, <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, Wim Henderickx <wi= m.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>

Hi!

This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-fi= lsfils-spring-segment-routing.

Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day = on October 8, 2014.

Some additional background:  This draft presents the 'Segment Rou= ting Architecture'; it focuses on the terminology and general architecture.=  draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls (for which there is separ= ate call for adoption) describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS data plane.


Thanks!

Alvaro.
 --_000_D048362B73A3Ejefftantsuraericssoncom_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 08:51:33 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82B601A0164 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:51:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 JYOUBTI5PUg5 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:51:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3746D1A00C3 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:51:16 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c618062d-f79206d0000014d2-24-5422923db122 Received: from EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.84]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 22.4A.05330.D3292245; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:43:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB109.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.126]) by EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:51:15 -0400 From: Jeff Tantsura To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thread-Index: AQHP1/fub1imTrTArE2x/Y4xmYwLR5wQPJSA Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:51:13 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.3.140616 x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.11] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D048367873A43jefftantsuraericssoncom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprDIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPiK7tJKUQgxUNthZ/f25ltJj5/zOL xfELvxkdmD2m/N7I6rFkyU8mjy+XP7MFMEdx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZZz42cBUsMWk4ue37ewN jFP0uxg5OSQETCRuX53OBGGLSVy4t56ti5GLQ0jgKKPE/+lbmCCc5YwSK/68ZwOpYhMwkPj/ 7TgLSEJEYAmjxOOVL5hBEswC6hLL9l9gAbGFBTwklizdB2aLCHhKPN6wgx3CNpI42zGdEcRm EVCVuLfvIZjNK2AusevkLFYQW0hAT6Ll0F6wZZwC+hILZn4DizMCnff91BomiF3iEreezIc6 W0BiyZ7zzBC2qMTLx//A6kWB5nyacg6qRkni4+/57BC9MRJdr34zQ+wVlDg58wnLBEaxWUjG zkJSNgtJGUTcQOL9ufnMELa2xLKFr6FsfYmNX84yQtjWEm1fPrMhq1nAyLGKkaO0OLUsN93I YBMjMDqPSbDp7mDc89LyEKMAB6MSD2/CW8UQIdbEsuLK3EOM0hwsSuK8s2rnBQsJpCeWpGan phakFsUXleakFh9iZOLglGpg5Fm776M+c0m4o/SfyN97Jgi9TXt+866u1+0o88kNWZuuFYSv ucVhpyJ5XvFf6oP1LAqBfZPOCt7LPHGwYd7763FHMjrfXE24uHybxYPUkEvMLyOZ1Rd99xGy 2n+f4a7dnFcLM9fI8B+66b9/cXhg9ydtxTUvODcHsUxOCd2erV1q9MJ7idsGViWW4oxEQy3m ouJEAAK82sqvAgAA Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/FPBwuWWdi3QdYyBAtRjtN4mphf4 Cc: "spring@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:51:25 -0000 --_000_D048367873A43jefftantsuraericssoncom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Alvaro, I=92m not aware of any relevant IPR beyond what has been already disclosed. Thanks! Cheers, Jeff From: Alvaro Retana > Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 at 6:03 AM To: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" > Cc: "spring@ietf.org" > Subject: IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Resent-To: >, >, Clarence Filsfils >, >, >, Jeff Tan= tsura >, >, >, >, >, >, Wim Henderickx > Hi! In parallel to the WG Adoption Call for this draft, I want to formally ask = the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version of= the draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether or not you= are aware of any relevant IPR beyond what has been already disclosed. The= draft will not progress (pending the results of the WG Adoption Call) unti= l we have received a response from each author. http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=3Ddocument_search&id=3Ddraft= -filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_D048367873A43jefftantsuraericssoncom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <9BB35996FC629E438767EF61AC0F486D@ericsson.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Alvaro,

I=92m not aware of any relevant IPR beyond what has been already discl= osed.

Thanks!

Cheers,
Jeff

From: Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2014= at 6:03 AM
To: "draft-filsfils-spring-segmen= t-routing@tools.ietf.org" <draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@t= ools.ietf.org>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <= spring@ietf.org>
Subject: IPR Claims related to draf= t-filsfils-spring-segment-routing
Resent-To: <bashandy@cisco.com>, <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, Clarence Filsfils &l= t;cfilsfil@cisco.com>, <edc@google.com>, <igormilojevic@telekom.rs>, Jeff= Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@e= ricsson.com>, <mar= tin.horneffer@telekom.de>, <rob.shakir@bt.com>, <saku@ytti.fi>, <sprevidi@cisco.com>, <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, Wim Henderickx <wi= m.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>

Hi!

In parallel to the WG Adoption Call for this draft, I want to for= mally ask the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest = version of the draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether = or not you are aware of any relevant IPR beyond what has been already disclosed.  The draft will not progr= ess (pending the results of the WG Adoption Call) until we have received a = response from each author.


Thanks!

Alvaro.
 --_000_D048367873A43jefftantsuraericssoncom_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 08:52:23 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6DA51A0141 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:52:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 b-e5tEd_5rG4 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:52:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 203CA1A014F for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:52:15 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c6180641-f79916d00000623a-1e-5422900ebd99 Received: from EUSAAHC006.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.90]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 89.20.25146.E0092245; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:34:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB109.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.126]) by EUSAAHC006.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.90]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:52:13 -0400 From: Jeff Tantsura To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thread-Index: AQHP1/iPGeXWHBcyB0uy5DIe6qCkOZwQPN4A Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:52:13 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.3.140616 x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.12] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D04836B373A46jefftantsuraericssoncom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprJIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPlC7/BKUQg5ZX7BZ/f25ltLh2sInV 4viF34wOzB5Tfm9k9Viy5CeTx5fLn9kCmKO4bFJSczLLUov07RK4MhqP/2YrWGJYceTNWcYG xkU6XYycHBICJhLLG38xQdhiEhfurWfrYuTiEBI4yiix/8h9dghnOaPEnleHGEGq2AQMJP5/ O84CkhARWMco0XZzOliCWUBdYtn+CywgtrCAr8SN7xPYQWwRgQCJ7V1zmCFsI4lZRz+B1bMI qEq0PT4OtI6Dg1fAXGL5h1SQsJCAnsTbS+uYQMKcAvoSh1cKgYQZgY77fmoNE8QmcYlbT+ZD HS0gsWTPeWYIW1Ti5eN/rCC2KNCYT1POQdUoScx5fY0ZojdGYtKf6WBX8goISpyc+YRlAqPY LCRjZyEpm4WkDCJuIPH+3HxmCFtbYtnC11C2vsTGL2cZZwFdzSxgLTFldiiykgWMHKsYOUqL U8ty040MNzEC4/KYBJvjDsYFnywPMQpwMCrx8Ca8VQwRYk0sK67MPcQozcGiJM6rWT0vWEgg PbEkNTs1tSC1KL6oNCe1+BAjEwenVANjqNk8h4JLTNY/GdPEV75TjVXcerM4KkW++efm9I9v 1P9cze2Q71CZ+36C3sQzUUsfG8W/dIlLboqZYtE11fRu+tSnyw0PldhHauXUHd/06EdKTsGW S1/PrbpmpVhq0m83t9Fy9tqLshEKGhnhJsrV8dwyEfo/feetOxAr1dyvMqOmPoVxvYYSS3FG oqEWc1FxIgB16lGfrAIAAA== Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/IlZwjJtMLmtD7o5Ccy7mD8uR7Fo Cc: "spring@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:52:20 -0000 --_000_D04836B373A46jefftantsuraericssoncom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Alvaro, I=92m not aware of any relevant IPR beyond what has been already disclosed Cheers, Jeff From: Alvaro Retana > Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 at 6:07 AM To: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" > Cc: "spring@ietf.org" > Subject: IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Resent-To: >, >, Clarence Filsfils >, >, >, Jeff Tan= tsura >, >, >, >, >, >, Wim Henderickx > Hi! In parallel to the WG Adoption Call for this draft, I want to formally ask = the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version of= the draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether or not you= are aware of any relevant IPR. So far there are no related disclosures. = The draft will not progress (pending the results of the WG Adoption Call) u= ntil we have received a response from each author. Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_D04836B373A46jefftantsuraericssoncom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <8F72AFB33A877C4481912A6C7EC822AF@ericsson.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Alvaro,

I=92m not aware of any relevant IPR beyond what has been already discl= osed

Cheers,
Jeff

From: Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2014= at 6:07 AM
To: "draft-filsfils-spring-s= egment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" <draft-filsfils-spring-se= gment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <= spring@ietf.org>
Subject: IPR Claims related to draf= t-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls
Resent-To: <bashandy@cisco.com>, <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, Clarence Filsfils &l= t;cfilsfil@cisco.com>, <edc@google.com>, <igormilojevic@telekom.rs>, Jeff= Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@e= ricsson.com>, <mar= tin.horneffer@telekom.de>, <rob.shakir@bt.com>, <saku@ytti.fi>, <sprevidi@cisco.com>, <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, Wim Henderickx <wi= m.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>

Hi!

In parallel to the WG Adoption Call for this draft, I want to for= mally ask the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest = version of the draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether = or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.  So far there are no related disclosures.  The draft will n= ot progress (pending the results of the WG Adoption Call) until we have rec= eived a response from each author.

Thanks!

Alvaro.
 --_000_D04836B373A46jefftantsuraericssoncom_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 09:37:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2D271A0204 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:37:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.686 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham 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 w98NsSTSYE6n for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:37:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-us.alcatel-lucent.com (us-hpatc-esg-01.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.18.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AD2C1A01C6 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:37:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from us70uusmtp3.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.5.2.65]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id E7F4291566FA9; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:37:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from US70UWXCHHUB01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70uwxchhub01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.48]) by us70uusmtp3.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s8OGbTH9016841 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:37:29 -0400 Received: from US70UWXCHMBA06.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.11.223]) by US70UWXCHHUB01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.48]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:37:29 -0400 From: "Dolganow, Andrew (Andrew)" To: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" Thread-Topic: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thread-Index: AQHP1/erEVxtlwjKhU+FJUO3TO8y15wQsP+A///KuoA= Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:37:28 +0000 Message-ID: References: , <34BFEB9B-E8E4-4F5D-8492-BEF2559D5C29@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <34BFEB9B-E8E4-4F5D-8492-BEF2559D5C29@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/k7xS5YMQcDSGV8LislAEcyj9VeQ Cc: "Alvaro Retana \(aretana\)" , "spring@ietf.org" , "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:37:33 -0000 Support Andrew Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 24, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote: >=20 > I support the draft as co-author. >=20 > s. >=20 >=20 >> On Sep 24, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: >>=20 >> Hi! >>=20 >> This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-= spring-segment-routing. >>=20 >> Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on= October 8, 2014. >>=20 >> Some additional background: This draft presents the 'Segment Routing Ar= chitecture'; it focuses on the terminology and general architecture. draft= -filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls (for which there is separate call for= adoption) describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS data = plane. >>=20 >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing >>=20 >> Thanks! >>=20 >> Alvaro. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring From nobody Wed Sep 24 09:43:00 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95C281A0101 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:42:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham 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 yuld0OLbIWNb for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:42:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AC621A00D6 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:42:57 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c618062d-f79206d0000014d2-f8-54229e5ae6ce Received: from EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.84]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 71.AD.05330.A5E92245; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:35:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:42:56 -0400 From: Gregory Mirsky To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thread-Index: AQHP1/iB/rpWjvUy80KKMiEjZbS5RpwQfQiA Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:42:55 +0000 Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B850D1F@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.9] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B850D1Feusaamb103erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpgkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLonRDd6nlKIwacp/BZ/f25ltLh2sInV 4viF34wOzB5Tfm9k9Viy5CeTx5fLn9kCmKO4bFJSczLLUov07RK4Mh5s3spYcNK24u+lPtYG xsvmXYwcHBICJhLfZ5t2MXICmWISF+6tZwOxhQSOMkqcnm7WxcgFZC9nlJg/7zgzSIJNwEji xcYedhBbRCBC4uqyk6wgNrNArcSzxknsIDOFBcIl9kxlhCnZ+bGBBcI2knjWsRQsziKgKjFx wm6wOK+Ar8SSPU0sEHv1JB52rAGr4RTQl9jweDfYKkag276fWsMEsUpc4taT+UwQNwsA9Z5n hrBFJV4+/scKYStK7Oufzg5Rny9x8NQmJohdghInZz5hmcAoOgvJqFlIymYhKYOI60gs2P2J DcLWlli28DUzjH3mwGMmZPEFjOyrGDlKi1PLctONDDYxAqPsmASb7g7GPS8tDzEKcDAq8fAm vFUMEWJNLCuuzD3EKM3BoiTOO6t2XrCQQHpiSWp2ampBalF8UWlOavEhRiYOTqkGxq19nzRr q/8aimjf+mVaU99wfP8JllUOWxiOBayyeReu7XD4/BSdc5fTWQ6c0428177F2N1yje67htbF +iITjFeWZOUU/dn+8NRugRl3Nd/tZEqZ7730WMbpqC/39n/c1f+3h51b8JHtUYHN5bPUXkQd +hUUN2dT6/v+RTMKTQ2YWI7ty55loK3EUpyRaKjFXFScCACj5Zr8kwIAAA== Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/2jRXr7y3wuSmMQJsLEKrOOtzegg Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:42:59 -0000 --_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B850D1Feusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, yes/support adoption by the WG. Regards, Greg From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (a= retana) Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 6:08 AM To: spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routin= g-mpls Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spr= ing-segment-routing-mpls. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on Oc= tober 8, 2014. Some additional background: This draft describes the instantiation of Segm= ent Routing on the MPLS data plane. The Segment Routing Architecture is pr= esented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for which there is a sepa= rate call for adoption) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B850D1Feusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

yes/support adoption by t= he WG.

 <= /p>

    &= nbsp;           Regards,<= o:p>

    &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;  Greg

 <= /p>

From: spring [= mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (aretana)
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 6:08 AM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment= -routing-mpls

 

Hi!

 

This message officially sta= rts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mp= ls.

 

Please indicate your positi= on about adopting this draft by end-of-day on October 8, 2014.

 

Some additional background:=  This draft describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on th= e MPLS data plane.  The Segment Routing Architecture is presented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for which there is a separate ca= ll for adoption)

 

 

Thanks!

 

Alvaro.

--_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B850D1Feusaamb103erics_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 09:43:41 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 181441A014A for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:43:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham 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 xd_YlqGY4ta4 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:43:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 889931A0135 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:43:38 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c618062d-f79206d0000014d2-29-54229e83e4db Received: from EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.84]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 5B.AD.05330.38E92245; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:35:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:43:37 -0400 From: Gregory Mirsky To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thread-Index: AQHP1/erEVxtlwjKhU+FJUO3TO8y15wQfUog Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:43:36 +0000 Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B850D35@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.9] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B850D35eusaamb103erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpkkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLonRLd5nlKIQe9mU4u/P7cyWsz8/5nF 4viF34wOzB5Tfm9k9Viy5CeTx5fLn9kCmKO4bFJSczLLUov07RK4Mm72PGUp6LarOPO+soGx zaKLkZNDQsBE4u/kT8wQtpjEhXvr2boYuTiEBI4yShzfcgksISSwnFFi0n1/EJtNwEjixcYe dhBbRCBC4uqyk6wgNrNAscTZQ1/A6oUF3CXm7FjDCFHjIbFi0m8mCNtIYu+P5WA1LAKqEl8m rwDr5RXwlfi0cgEjxC49ib9r7oDVcAroS/w+uwishhHouO+n1jBB7BKXuPVkPhPE0QISS/ac h3pAVOLl43+sELaixL7+6ewQ9fkSOyf9ZIPYJShxcuYTlgmMorOQjJqFpGwWkjKIuI7Egt2f 2CBsbYllC18zw9hnDjxmQhZfwMi+ipGjtDi1LDfdyGATIzDOjkmw6e5g3PPS8hCjAAejEg9v wlvFECHWxLLiytxDjNIcLErivLNq5wULCaQnlqRmp6YWpBbFF5XmpBYfYmTi4JRqYFRuVBac uHXJuSdx+nc/yvNnGYSxbdZ+3zRNLmVm06ykKTu+PxZg+XZBdG1GRKDUqrxJ9a/+Tc6fkek8 77jE1+WKZ3d3zoxd5bQn1aQrO2FfcO6kuQtefXJdrdMoq7bZ/IO3xBK/jEPxXuEifzvO+djm VjM5bWe57bTY+sJa4cUnXsg93Xm+840SS3FGoqEWc1FxIgDR5UsZlAIAAA== Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/4SC9gVtnhASYsV0WU-pAee7rPs4 Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:43:40 -0000 --_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B850D35eusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, yes/support adoption by the WG. Regards, Greg From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (a= retana) Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 6:02 AM To: spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routin= g Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spr= ing-segment-routing. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on Oc= tober 8, 2014. Some additional background: This draft presents the 'Segment Routing Archi= tecture'; it focuses on the terminology and general architecture. draft-fi= lsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls (for which there is separate call for ad= option) describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS data pla= ne. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B850D35eusaamb103erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

yes/support adoption by t= he WG.

 <= /p>

    &= nbsp;           Regards,<= o:p>

    &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;  Greg

 <= /p>

From: spring [= mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (aretana)
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 6:02 AM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment= -routing

 

Hi!

 

This message officially sta= rts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing.

 

Please indicate your positi= on about adopting this draft by end-of-day on October 8, 2014.

 

Some additional background:=  This draft presents the 'Segment Routing Architecture'; it focuses o= n the terminology and general architecture.  draft-filsfils-spring-seg= ment-routing-mpls (for which there is separate call for adoption) describes the instantiatio= n of Segment Routing on the MPLS data plane.

 

 

Thanks!

 

Alvaro.

--_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B850D35eusaamb103erics_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 09:46:50 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFD871A0135 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:46:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.312 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 laVUGkI5vpUT for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:46:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f176.google.com (mail-lb0-f176.google.com [209.85.217.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3D621A00F0 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:46:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f176.google.com with SMTP id w7so6108436lbi.21 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:46:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=5MtwZy0HFopCig6jFmuryv/CHwDdoqmoSwb4uvFaIC4=; b=gwvW5SIXDCe/9xbbUU+5Iet9g+fGpK+m3gSsxKVUcooEEI3YCpOdcTewskI4U/yOzB hmJO3VgRJednSUcqouXKBsLiZfvfzMiBhuRSe5k2T6JgBbWxMa1IF+edSHlZjLI3AioZ 5Qn8YH1jX2XlHOmdWte73HcsZpEPheXmylSWMwigpZSJhGKyb9BVhRmq9Nc6UuJuZvXH 6jDLYI80K0E7hQ20erHrDI/1NpS5gQaFnEDTUHvM7Ukqme6lU+mt7qLho4YdW9DTIiqq EMkslWgnT2Al69t1DDaMuqknSnSFhx+ADWOPOMEPNMQswC1UfRHfMf8PhfQpvb4o/7rm 2akw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmUPz10V81S6/jSa/1/a8tGK1l+yvfRscD3mgf0oCVG5MSSjnhfta5/4DAtFmZRV37wxUYI MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.206.101 with SMTP id ln5mr7761547lac.46.1411577205778; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:46:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.150.73 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:46:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [99.242.86.41] Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:46:45 -0400 Message-ID: From: Ida Leung To: spring@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11349a74ec81d50503d26de5 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/rxqj52yLe_ZMWvsLfGLmZSjdS-4 Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:46:49 -0000 --001a11349a74ec81d50503d26de5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I support the adoption for the draft. Thanks, ...Ida --001a11349a74ec81d50503d26de5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
I support the adoption for the draft.

Thanks,

...Ida
--001a11349a74ec81d50503d26de5-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 10:42:29 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1AD11A02D7 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:42:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 ZG7WTxZd7bgq for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:42:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1on0739.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::739]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0EB31A0127 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:42:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jbarrett-sslvpn-nc.jnpr.net (66.129.241.13) by CO2PR05MB731.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.228.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1034.13; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 17:41:55 +0000 From: "John G. Scudder" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C4D08F59-E0F3-4186-BB89-FA4B2368F8A7" Message-ID: <20672E5A-7A51-4040-B9A3-F1B3248BDD1A@juniper.net> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:41:20 -0400 To: MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Originating-IP: [66.129.241.13] X-ClientProxiedBy: BY1PR0201CA0015.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (25.160.191.153) To CO2PR05MB731.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.228.21) X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:; X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO2PR05MB731; X-Forefront-PRVS: 03449D5DD1 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(41574002)(199003)(53754006)(189002)(57306001)(120916001)(105586002)(83072002)(92726001)(512954002)(101416001)(69596002)(80022003)(42186005)(87286001)(81542003)(76482002)(106356001)(229853001)(79102003)(77156001)(83322001)(81156004)(107886001)(10300001)(84326002)(99396003)(97736003)(92566001)(77096002)(2351001)(85306004)(62966002)(53416004)(31966008)(110136001)(102836001)(50986999)(88136002)(50226001)(66066001)(85852003)(90102001)(4396001)(64706001)(93916002)(95666004)(83716003)(33656002)(74502003)(107046002)(104166001)(46102003)(20776003)(86362001)(81342003)(87976001)(77982003)(74662003)(71186001)(21056001)(69556001)(82746002)(89996001)(36756003)(104396001)(42262002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO2PR05MB731; H:jbarrett-sslvpn-nc.jnpr.net; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/pfLoNXd9iYTYXoO8GALKTW-ii-o Subject: [spring] IPR in SPRING X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 17:42:28 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_C4D08F59-E0F3-4186-BB89-FA4B2368F8A7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Everyone, Alvaro recently sent a set of requests to authors to be sure they have = disclosed any relevant IPR, and of course they should. In addition, we = wanted to take this opportunity to remind the entire WG that the duty of = disclosure is NOT limited to authors. Here are some excerpts from RFC = 3979 (emphasis added): (c) in order for the working group and the rest of the IETF to have the information needed to make an informed decision about the use of a particular technology, all those contributing to the working group's discussions must disclose the existence of any IPR the Contributor or other IETF participant believes Covers or may ultimately Cover the technology under discussion. This applies to both Contributors and other participants, and applies whether they contribute in person, via email or by other means. The requirement applies to all IPR of the participant, the participant's employer, sponsor, or others represented by the participants, that is reasonably and personally known to the participant. No patent search is required. RFC 3979 also points out disclosure must be "as soon as reasonably = possible": The IPR disclosure required pursuant to section 6.1.1 must be made as soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is published in an Internet Draft unless the required disclosure is already on file. (same applies to 6.1.2) WG participants should be aware of this, review RFC 3979 if not familiar = with it, and take this opportunity to bring themselves into compliance = if necessary. Thanks! --John= --Apple-Mail=_C4D08F59-E0F3-4186-BB89-FA4B2368F8A7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Hi Everyone,

Alvaro recently sent a set of requests to authors to be sure they have disclosed any relevant IPR, and of course they should. In addition, we wanted to take this opportunity to remind the entire WG that the duty of disclosure is NOT limited to authors. Here are some excerpts from RFC 3979 (emphasis added):

   (c) in order for the working group and the rest of the IETF to have
       the information needed to make an informed decision about the use
       of a particular technology, all those contributing to the working
       group's discussions must disclose the existence of any IPR the
       Contributor or other IETF participant believes Covers or may
       ultimately Cover the technology under discussion.  This applies
       to both Contributors and other participants, and applies whether
       they contribute in person, via email or by other means.  The
       requirement applies to all IPR of the participant, the
       participant's employer, sponsor, or others represented by the
       participants, that is reasonably and personally known to the
       participant.  No patent search is required.

RFC 3979 also points out disclosure must be "as soon as reasonably possible":

   The IPR disclosure required pursuant to section 6.1.1 must be made as
   soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is published in an
   Internet Draft unless the required disclosure is already on file.

(same applies to 6.1.2)

WG participants should be aware of this, review RFC 3979 if not familiar with it, and take this opportunity to bring themselves into compliance if necessary.

Thanks!

--John
--Apple-Mail=_C4D08F59-E0F3-4186-BB89-FA4B2368F8A7-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 11:05:42 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 433F51A02FF for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:05:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 5aV8AYwovnsD for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:05:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-x231.google.com (mail-pd0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 660311A02F7 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:05:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f177.google.com with SMTP id v10so7195548pde.22 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:05:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=nAUU2YAvwoJH+e0PGEh4emCrBwsgLNYgFSRg6oGwKbE=; b=gAWlMNnw0lsLVFGfNpvexl0iy9pT5KyS9MtqZH7RLWhyt6xKeFJh9pyxeOpRi7CO9s cxlWfhrrDd08bQUYuM0D1zXOVf3r9Xbi0rl+/lv7vi49di1CzgfTqRJzwJiL4BBV60Mw yvo5+Y5qosCIUKQmpw8k+W0U+UrDCFgTZMnhTKfuVmvoufwZwhYZPXN65NHY8DqzliZJ Nznz/clmM5Qxwvjx7grMTtjxFf4Pv/Mqi2/+1QVgbyWC407+qZEAY2f+OspLLBRXN6aO jtcRYYBTZiCATZqtl5v8es3Uj80VTB7EQymjnu1bzLeesU1z80O2jNYyzuQw+QMiistX D7Zg== X-Received: by 10.70.118.9 with SMTP id ki9mr15081766pdb.104.1411581938043; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:05:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.246.107.142] (mobile-166-147-083-151.mycingular.net. [166.147.83.151]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ju4sm4563pbc.6.2014.09.24.11.05.36 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:05:37 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-9825E9B2-67EC-42C6-A9D8-9462D49528B0 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Christian Martin X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D201) In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:05:35 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/k_6_0Kd_EfJcvShRbn-wep6IuUU Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 18:05:40 -0000 --Apple-Mail-9825E9B2-67EC-42C6-A9D8-9462D49528B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support. > On Sep 24, 2014, at 7:07 AM, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" = wrote: >=20 > Hi! >=20 > This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-sp= ring-segment-routing-mpls. >=20 > Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on O= ctober 8, 2014. >=20 > Some additional background: This draft describes the instantiation of Seg= ment Routing on the MPLS data plane. The Segment Routing Architecture is pr= esented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for which there is a separ= ate call for adoption) >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Alvaro. > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring --Apple-Mail-9825E9B2-67EC-42C6-A9D8-9462D49528B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Support.

On Sep 24, 2014, at 7:07 AM, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> wrote:

Hi!

This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls.

Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on October 8, 2014.

Some additional background:  This draft describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS data plane.  The Segment Routing Architecture is presented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for which there is a separate call for adoption)


Thanks!

Alvaro.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
--Apple-Mail-9825E9B2-67EC-42C6-A9D8-9462D49528B0-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 13:26:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CE41A19E3 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:26:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.366 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.366 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 TbyV6lXIyOH0 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:26:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com (mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com [67.231.145.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C88B61A0406 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:26:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0044008 [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id s8OKQ5dl031484 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:26:11 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fb.com; h=message-id : date : from : mime-version : to : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=facebook; bh=EwzYIHa4+vg9DcRZGaiF6yx+ksa656U2ou/6ImmcLkQ=; b=m3aSwyb2e5Je81dG53DrOUt0gUrDpo8y1gNSrIQZ+XBO5uCF/TVjtSsHLLqUFoW2MpQb HPukZ4DQ1pDdd5Nvy6M0Zt09CecXxjfZNblXgf2TuhLoaxHw3vLyoZJZK4r5ZVwTS3mX cEk/svbJQNOsYe2NUuzvHo3+UMIilEazuhI= Received: from mail.thefacebook.com (mailwest.thefacebook.com [173.252.71.148]) by mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1pkyr2rmer-3 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:26:11 -0700 Received: from [172.20.17.92] (192.168.16.4) by mail.thefacebook.com (192.168.16.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:26:09 -0700 Message-ID: <542328E0.7070707@fb.com> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:26:08 -0600 From: Ebben Aries MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [192.168.16.4] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.12.52, 1.0.28, 0.0.0000 definitions=2014-09-24_08:2014-09-24,2014-09-24,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=fb_default_notspam policy=fb_default score=0 kscore.is_bulkscore=1.87627691161651e-14 kscore.compositescore=0 circleOfTrustscore=83.392 compositescore=0.999779233484434 urlsuspect_oldscore=0.999779233484434 suspectscore=37 recipient_domain_to_sender_totalscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 kscore.is_spamscore=0 recipient_to_sender_totalscore=0 recipient_domain_to_sender_domain_totalscore=10424 rbsscore=0.999779233484434 spamscore=0 recipient_to_sender_domain_totalscore=0 urlsuspectscore=0.9 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1409240204 X-FB-Internal: deliver Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/NkM7WEuq0gSLKUoMIGVF159J2BY Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 20:26:13 -0000 support On 09/24/2014 07:07 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > Hi! > > This message officially starts the call for adoption > for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls. > > Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on > October 8, 2014. > > Some additional background: This draft describes the instantiation of > Segment Routing on the MPLS data plane. The Segment Routing > Architecture is presented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for > which there is a separate call for adoption) > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls > > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=GJQFPrZyyh453ywaGV%2FvoQ%3D%3D%0A&m=YbwuSabFdksZIU0NaUiSfrtwnU%2F8BLhF1IceAYqlbHc%3D%0A&s=b73d5046f27e31f81f22f90d2fd5df2ba4f6c4ce052f579f829ef114c3ff9405 > From nobody Wed Sep 24 13:27:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37ED11A07BC for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:27:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.366 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.366 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 xFyJut_OM_bg for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:27:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com (mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com [67.231.145.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6667B1A19E3 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:27:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0004347 [127.0.0.1]) by m0004347.ppops.net (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id s8OKLcAq001605; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:27:07 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fb.com; h=message-id : date : from : mime-version : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=facebook; bh=SFauwJ/kyAY08PtEyciWafGVfzp8ryYzDpmS1LoJDQE=; b=V+jeGTj2PnkRxrLrPbCNO2/RxU2+L7XIBDTyZWR4ax5YXRPqt29Y6482Z9KiazZnVV5x Xriq1BgvVL2dmzOlwxW8dj89uMxf85SHIkrgkYo5tMNZ8FhxiCiQdNNroNn3mUcr6R3H rU0hW4Cf5TSBe/xGbg/AffsWSIoHQ8NKmJY= Received: from mail.thefacebook.com (mailwest.thefacebook.com [173.252.71.148]) by m0004347.ppops.net with ESMTP id 1pky7y0q0d-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:27:06 -0700 Received: from [172.20.17.92] (192.168.16.4) by mail.thefacebook.com (192.168.16.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:27:05 -0700 Message-ID: <54232918.8080902@fb.com> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:27:04 -0600 From: Ebben Aries MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "spring@ietf.org" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [192.168.16.4] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.12.52, 1.0.28, 0.0.0000 definitions=2014-09-24_08:2014-09-24,2014-09-24,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=fb_default_notspam policy=fb_default score=0 kscore.is_bulkscore=1.87627691161651e-14 kscore.compositescore=0 circleOfTrustscore=131.386024913927 compositescore=0.999770756044073 urlsuspect_oldscore=0.999770756044073 suspectscore=2 recipient_domain_to_sender_totalscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 kscore.is_spamscore=0 recipient_to_sender_totalscore=0 recipient_domain_to_sender_domain_totalscore=40767 rbsscore=0.999770756044073 spamscore=0 recipient_to_sender_domain_totalscore=0 urlsuspectscore=0.9 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1409240204 X-FB-Internal: deliver Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ZVo3wsaCjqqHsi3cVr0nF3b7Dno Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 20:27:15 -0000 support On 09/24/2014 07:01 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > Hi! > > This message officially starts the call for adoption > for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing. > > Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on > October 8, 2014. > > Some additional background: This draft presents the 'Segment Routing > Architecture'; it focuses on the terminology and general architecture. > draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls (for which there is > separate call for adoption) describes the instantiation of Segment > Routing on the MPLS data plane. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing > > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=GJQFPrZyyh453ywaGV%2FvoQ%3D%3D%0A&m=1wsqNmgDerYxlK1WplVok8SHO1Gj46zHs87VFgYwGas%3D%0A&s=3bba0190a1513ff0778d5590e5d8c61b33004fabd0b08679c1c91135accc18de > From nobody Wed Sep 24 16:34:05 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEE5F1A1B44 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:34:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.687 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.687 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 TojTgCygZpXi for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:34:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [IPv6:2001:418:3f4::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57D631A1A69 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:34:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (pool-108-44-193-12.clppva.fios.verizon.net [108.44.193.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by puck.nether.net (8.14.8/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8ONY6Kv027342 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 19:34:07 -0400 References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-5353792D-AE8C-40C9-893D-BC503FCD4CE9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <3EB66C44-B236-4155-B6C5-2123511C3656@puck.nether.net> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12A365) From: Jon Mitchell Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 19:33:57 -0400 To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.7 (puck.nether.net [204.42.254.5]); Wed, 24 Sep 2014 19:34:09 -0400 (EDT) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/2ND4NPM79oYgs3Z08Ih20-xDjqY Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 23:34:03 -0000 --Apple-Mail-5353792D-AE8C-40C9-893D-BC503FCD4CE9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support -Jon > On Sep 24, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) w= rote: >=20 > Hi! >=20 > This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-sp= ring-segment-routing. >=20 > Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on O= ctober 8, 2014. >=20 > Some additional background: This draft presents the 'Segment Routing Arch= itecture'; it focuses on the terminology and general architecture. draft-fi= lsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls (for which there is separate call for ado= ption) describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS data plane= . >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Alvaro. > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring --Apple-Mail-5353792D-AE8C-40C9-893D-BC503FCD4CE9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Support

-Jon

On Sep 24, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com> wrote:

Hi!

This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing.

Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on October 8, 2014.

Some additional background:  This draft presents the 'Segment Routing Architecture'; it focuses on the terminology and general architecture.  draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls (for which there is separate call for adoption) describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS data plane.


Thanks!

Alvaro.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
--Apple-Mail-5353792D-AE8C-40C9-893D-BC503FCD4CE9-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 17:18:09 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E21581A1B5D for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 17:18:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 J7iw4A5nYEhm for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 17:18:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37D9F1A1B44 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 17:18:06 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c6180641-f79916d00000623a-23-5423069691bd Received: from EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.96]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F5.6D.25146.69603245; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 19:59:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB105.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.122]) by EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.96]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 20:18:01 -0400 From: Uma Chunduri To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thread-Index: AQHP1/erEVxtlwjKhU+FJUO3TO8y15wQ/Ebw Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:18:01 +0000 Message-ID: <1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F3ADFA9@eusaamb105.ericsson.se> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.10] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F3ADFA9eusaamb105erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpmkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLonQXc6m3KIwYIL3BZ/f25ltJj5/zOL xfELvxkdmD2m/N7I6rFkyU8mjy+XP7MFMEdx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZcw/+5ulYIptxaYnx1ga GNebdzFyckgImEg8XP+MFcIWk7hwbz1bFyMXh5DAUUaJpw1L2CGc5YwShxs+soFUsQnoSXyc +pMdxBYRiJC4uuwkWDezQLHE2UNfmEFsYQF3iTk71jBC1HhIrJj0mwnCNpJo3/8IrIZFQFVi e/9GsDivgK/EjusrwGYKAc3/u+YOWA2ngL7E77OLwOYzAl33/dQaJohd4hK3nsxngrhaQGLJ nvPMELaoxMvH/6C+UZKYtPQc1G35EnsOnWeB2CUocXLmE5YJjKKzkIyahaRsFpIyiLiOxILd n9ggbG2JZQtfM8PYZw48ZkIWX8DIvoqRo7Q4tSw33chwEyMw1o5JsDnuYFzwyfIQowAHoxIP b8JbxRAh1sSy4srcQ4zSHCxK4rya1fOChQTSE0tSs1NTC1KL4otKc1KLDzEycXBKNTCurpAw 8zl1u5vzwUT7cr/dcTySHa8FVyZs4M4Xygw7GbvrVODTXVENCTfNJJ+yneZzYJ59bNkzq56c pUvOJD7h1FI7fHK97U4GxgfavDHVx2MuJZhEZDWZ3DSbcXut1Qd5F671vsq7zoV2HXKf7+p0 Y/NDtlMFadNLv4Re79z0oM8wdm/Rq0wlluKMREMt5qLiRABQU97vlgIAAA== Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/HqyHtXj07xwNsy6zyhFKKALwTCQ Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:18:09 -0000 --_000_1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F3ADFA9eusaamb105erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support this. (have few comments and will pot those later) -- Uma C. From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (a= retana) Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 6:02 AM To: spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routin= g Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spr= ing-segment-routing. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on Oc= tober 8, 2014. Some additional background: This draft presents the 'Segment Routing Archi= tecture'; it focuses on the terminology and general architecture. draft-fi= lsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls (for which there is separate call for ad= option) describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS data pla= ne. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F3ADFA9eusaamb105erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Support this.<= /span>

 <= /p>

(have few comments and wi= ll pot those later)

 <= /p>

--

Uma C.<= /p>

 <= /p>

From: spring [= mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (aretana)
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 6:02 AM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment= -routing

 

Hi!

 

This message officially sta= rts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing.

 

Please indicate your positi= on about adopting this draft by end-of-day on October 8, 2014.

 

Some additional background:=  This draft presents the 'Segment Routing Architecture'; it focuses o= n the terminology and general architecture.  draft-filsfils-spring-seg= ment-routing-mpls (for which there is separate call for adoption) describes the instantiatio= n of Segment Routing on the MPLS data plane.

 

 

Thanks!

 

Alvaro.

--_000_1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F3ADFA9eusaamb105erics_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 17:18:32 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25C51A1B5D for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 17:18:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 qgKdCq3B5FpI for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 17:18:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1844B1A1B59 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 17:18:29 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c618062d-f79206d0000014d2-f5-542309194784 Received: from EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.84]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 51.37.05330.91903245; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 20:10:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB105.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.122]) by EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 20:18:28 -0400 From: Uma Chunduri To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thread-Index: AQHP1/iB/rpWjvUy80KKMiEjZbS5RpwQ/H3w Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:18:27 +0000 Message-ID: <1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F3ADFC1@eusaamb105.ericsson.se> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.10] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F3ADFC1eusaamb105erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrHLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPiK4Up3KIwe6vHBZ/f25ltLh2sInV 4viF34wOzB5Tfm9k9Viy5CeTx5fLn9kCmKO4bFJSczLLUov07RK4Mia1LGEt2GBZsWyqRgPj P+MuRk4OCQETiUkP1rBC2GISF+6tZ+ti5OIQEjjKKHFl/WVmCGc5o8Se88cYQarYBPQkPk79 yQ5iiwhESFxddhKsm1mgVuJZ4ySgOAeHsEC4xJ6pjDAlOz82sEDYRhJnVzWDxVkEVCU+bX8L Vs4r4CvxeSXYPUJA0x92rAEr4RTQl9jweDfYJkag276fWsMEsUlc4taT+UwQNwtILNlznhnC FpV4+fgf1C9KEpOWnmMFGc8skC9xYX8iSJhXQFDi5MwnLBMYRWchmTQLoWoWkiqIEh2JBbs/ sUHY2hLLFr5mhrHPHHjMhCy+gJF9FSNHaXFqWW66kcEmRmCEHZNg093BuOel5SFGAQ5GJR7e BWzKIUKsiWXFlbmHGKU5WJTEeWfVzgsWEkhPLEnNTk0tSC2KLyrNSS0+xMjEwSnVwBhwu+dZ uXpZTOvLdGfWg4vTLt17zz1b9c4m9uq31U0R3i+uzEp2KXguVbnIYJ/qG1UPjdsMcU9vBt1p f6exL+3V9EiTQ/ML1ZZt6y4X2sERxuJ208Z/+iWrYklzS6P3oWa750UWvBPK4LLfu9zRebar T9fk6lzh/32ZMl8fftdsZDzxSfWjvxJLcUaioRZzUXEiAJEV/6iRAgAA Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/WMLLl0bPfmk0fU8Xts3JcaUc4IQ Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:18:31 -0000 --_000_1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F3ADFC1eusaamb105erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support. -- Uma C. From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (a= retana) Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 6:08 AM To: spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routin= g-mpls Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spr= ing-segment-routing-mpls. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on Oc= tober 8, 2014. Some additional background: This draft describes the instantiation of Segm= ent Routing on the MPLS data plane. The Segment Routing Architecture is pr= esented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for which there is a sepa= rate call for adoption) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F3ADFC1eusaamb105erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Support.

 <= /p>

--

Uma C.<= /p>

 <= /p>

From: spring [= mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (aretana)
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 6:08 AM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment= -routing-mpls

 

Hi!

 

This message officially sta= rts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mp= ls.

 

Please indicate your positi= on about adopting this draft by end-of-day on October 8, 2014.

 

Some additional background:=  This draft describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on th= e MPLS data plane.  The Segment Routing Architecture is presented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for which there is a separate ca= ll for adoption)

 

 

Thanks!

 

Alvaro.

--_000_1B502206DFA0C544B7A60469152008633F3ADFC1eusaamb105erics_-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 22:51:02 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 765591A6F63 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:51:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.685 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.685 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham 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 6Y9aJ5FiPle4 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:50:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cappuccino.rob.sh (cappuccino.rob.sh [IPv6:2a03:9800:10:4c::cafe:b00c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD0DA1A6F5D for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:50:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [86.177.14.211] (helo=[192.168.1.78]) by cappuccino.rob.sh with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XX1x1-0001D8-GW; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:50:47 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_835E4552-2118-4155-A531-A1E5F91916FF" From: Rob Shakir In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:50:42 +0100 Message-Id: <317CE330-FFF6-4139-8616-75710715862E@rob.sh> References: To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/B9PJp6vkF-I9oMgjpiwq_Mgha6o Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 05:51:00 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_835E4552-2118-4155-A531-A1E5F91916FF Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Hi Alvaro, On 24 Sep 2014, at 14:07, Alvaro Retana (aretana) = wrote: >=20 > In parallel to the WG Adoption Call for this draft, I want to formally = ask the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest = version of the draft) to please respond to this message indicating = whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. So far there are no = related disclosures. The draft will not progress (pending the results = of the WG Adoption Call) until we have received a response from each = author. I=92m not aware of any IPR which is relevant to this draft. Kind regards, r. --Apple-Mail=_835E4552-2118-4155-A531-A1E5F91916FF Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Hi = Alvaro,

On 24 Sep 2014, at 14:07, Alvaro Retana = (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com> = wrote:


In parallel to the WG Adoption Call for this draft, I want to = formally ask the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the = latest version of the draft) to please respond to this message = indicating whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.  So far there are no related disclosures.  The draft = will not progress (pending the results of the WG Adoption Call) until we = have received a response from each author.

I=92m not aware of any IPR which is = relevant to this draft.

Kind = regards,
r.

= --Apple-Mail=_835E4552-2118-4155-A531-A1E5F91916FF-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 22:52:02 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A07DE1A6F17 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:52:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.685 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.685 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham 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 euC6areNZopM for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:51:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cappuccino.rob.sh (cappuccino.rob.sh [IPv6:2a03:9800:10:4c::cafe:b00c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E29B1A6F15 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:51:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [86.177.14.211] (helo=[192.168.1.78]) by cappuccino.rob.sh with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XX1y5-0001DV-Hu; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:51:53 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8167AFA8-95C9-4904-A8C0-0F4E8C51A693" From: Rob Shakir In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:51:48 +0100 Message-Id: <81AFFA65-7DD2-49E1-9E23-FA3D3076B8A7@rob.sh> References: To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/uOTUd9YB4m9DscrNAosBFY54jNk Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" , "spring@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 05:52:00 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_8167AFA8-95C9-4904-A8C0-0F4E8C51A693 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On 24 Sep 2014, at 14:03, Alvaro Retana (aretana) = wrote: > Hi! >=20 > In parallel to the WG Adoption Call for this draft, I want to formally = ask the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest = version of the draft) to please respond to this message indicating = whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR beyond what has been = already disclosed. The draft will not progress (pending the results of = the WG Adoption Call) until we have received a response from each = author. >=20 > = http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=3Ddocument_search&id=3Ddraf= t-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Hi Alvaro, I=92m not aware of any other IPR beyond that which has already been = disclosed which relates to this draft. Kind regards, r. --Apple-Mail=_8167AFA8-95C9-4904-A8C0-0F4E8C51A693 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
On 24 Sep 2014, at 14:03, Alvaro = Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com> = wrote:

Hi!

In parallel to the WG Adoption Call for this draft, I want to = formally ask the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the = latest version of the draft) to please respond to this message = indicating whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR beyond what has been already disclosed.  The draft will not = progress (pending the results of the WG Adoption Call) until we have = received a response from each author.


Hi = Alvaro,

I=92m not aware of any other IPR beyond = that which has already been disclosed which relates to this = draft.

Kind = regards,
r.

= --Apple-Mail=_8167AFA8-95C9-4904-A8C0-0F4E8C51A693-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 22:53:54 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 684401A6F17 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:53:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.685 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.685 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham 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 1aeXfzyxT_wg for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cappuccino.rob.sh (cappuccino.rob.sh [IPv6:2a03:9800:10:4c::cafe:b00c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DEFC1A6F15 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [86.177.14.211] (helo=[192.168.1.78]) by cappuccino.rob.sh with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XX1zx-0001Dk-Fm; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:53:49 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D59BC021-1CAB-4D5A-899C-D9BF5920848E" From: Rob Shakir In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:53:44 +0100 Message-Id: <43C4CB20-14D7-47AE-91E0-F0C7C9EA54D0@rob.sh> References: To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/L8efi7OsvwHlPAXX_Jdw9wVQK0c Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 05:53:52 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D59BC021-1CAB-4D5A-899C-D9BF5920848E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 23 Sep 2014, at 19:28, Alvaro Retana (aretana) = wrote: > Hi! >=20 > As agreed at the last in person meeting, this message starts the = Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement. This = call will close by EOD (pick your favorite time zone) on October 8, = 2014. >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement >=20 > Please provide specific feedback as to why you support (or not) the = advancement of this draft. Please avoid "+1"-type responses. =20 As a co-author, I support progressing this draft. Relating to the comment that was made re: adding text relating to = OpenFlow in this draft. Until such time as there are clear use cases = (that I would much prefer to be operator driven), then I do not think = that there is a requirement to add this to the problem statement - and = hence support the text as-is. Kind regards, r.= --Apple-Mail=_D59BC021-1CAB-4D5A-899C-D9BF5920848E Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
On 23 Sep 2014, at 19:28, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com> wrote:

Hi!

As agreed at the last in person meeting, this message starts the Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement.  This call will close by EOD (pick your favorite time zone) on October 8, 2014.


Please provide specific feedback as to why you support (or not) the advancement of this draft.  Please avoid "+1"-type responses.  

As a co-author,  I support progressing this draft.

Relating to the comment that was made re: adding text relating to OpenFlow in this draft. Until such time as there are clear use cases (that I would much prefer to be operator driven), then I do not think that there is a requirement to add this to the problem statement - and hence support the text as-is.

Kind regards,
r.
--Apple-Mail=_D59BC021-1CAB-4D5A-899C-D9BF5920848E-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 22:54:27 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC8D41A6F17 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:54:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.685 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.685 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham 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 3ImHKGZq_KLs for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:54:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cappuccino.rob.sh (cappuccino.rob.sh [IPv6:2a03:9800:10:4c::cafe:b00c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEAD91A6F15 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:54:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [86.177.14.211] (helo=[192.168.1.78]) by cappuccino.rob.sh with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XX20R-0001Dk-8F; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:54:19 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5303F1C0-D01D-4EE2-98C5-9E9204E4AAD4" From: Rob Shakir In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:54:17 +0100 Message-Id: References: To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/3HvMBu96a04ObL5rKVIJSCwaHc4 Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 05:54:25 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_5303F1C0-D01D-4EE2-98C5-9E9204E4AAD4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On 23 Sep 2014, at 19:34, Alvaro Retana (aretana) = wrote: > Hi! >=20 > In parallel to the WGLC for this draft, I want to formally ask the = authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version of = the draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether or not = you are aware of any relevant IPR. So far there are no related = disclosures. The draft will not progress (pending the results of the = WGLC) until we have received a response from each author. Hi Alvaro, I=92m not aware of an IPR relating to this draft. Kind regards, r. --Apple-Mail=_5303F1C0-D01D-4EE2-98C5-9E9204E4AAD4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
On 23 Sep 2014, at 19:34, Alvaro = Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com> = wrote:

Hi!

In parallel to the WGLC for this draft, I want to formally ask = the authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version = of the draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether or = not you are aware of any relevant IPR.  So far there are no related disclosures.  The draft will not progress = (pending the results of the WGLC) until we have received a response from = each author.

Hi = Alvaro,

I=92m not aware of an IPR relating to = this draft.

Kind = regards,
r.

= --Apple-Mail=_5303F1C0-D01D-4EE2-98C5-9E9204E4AAD4-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 22:55:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA53C1A6F32 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:55:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.685 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.685 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham 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 h_s86XytsqNN for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:55:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cappuccino.rob.sh (cappuccino.rob.sh [IPv6:2a03:9800:10:4c::cafe:b00c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42B621A6F2E for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:55:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [86.177.14.211] (helo=[192.168.1.78]) by cappuccino.rob.sh with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XX21X-0001EL-Eh; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:55:27 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C96CEB3A-5E5D-4842-AE4A-F73C334916A5" From: Rob Shakir In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:55:22 +0100 Message-Id: <8B11E6D0-2B10-4EC8-8C76-3F36FAD946C8@rob.sh> References: To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/cY19pBGZIKRzuYefXrfiAUIhNtY Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 05:55:33 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_C96CEB3A-5E5D-4842-AE4A-F73C334916A5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 24 Sep 2014, at 14:01, Alvaro Retana (aretana) = wrote: > Some additional background: This draft presents the 'Segment Routing = Architecture'; it focuses on the terminology and general architecture. = draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls (for which there is separate = call for adoption) describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on the = MPLS data plane. I support adoption of this draft, it forms a good basis to describe the = architecture of SR. Kind regards, r.= --Apple-Mail=_C96CEB3A-5E5D-4842-AE4A-F73C334916A5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
On 24 Sep 2014, at 14:01, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com> wrote:

Some additional background:  This draft presents the 'Segment Routing Architecture'; it focuses on the terminology and general architecture.  draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls (for which there is separate call for adoption) describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS data plane.

I support adoption of this draft, it forms a good basis to describe the architecture of SR.

Kind regards,
r.
--Apple-Mail=_C96CEB3A-5E5D-4842-AE4A-F73C334916A5-- From nobody Wed Sep 24 22:57:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02CFB1A1A08 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:57:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.685 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.685 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham 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 aGgoG4K2zNJA for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:57:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cappuccino.rob.sh (cappuccino.rob.sh [IPv6:2a03:9800:10:4c::cafe:b00c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E70A81A6F15 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [86.177.14.211] (helo=[192.168.1.78]) by cappuccino.rob.sh with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XX23i-0001Ea-Pq; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:57:42 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D1C40FC2-330B-4A54-8335-11A22B0C6FB6" From: Rob Shakir In-Reply-To: <29340_1411566585_5422CBF9_29340_7782_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A0720402C@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:57:36 +0100 Message-Id: References: <29340_1411566585_5422CBF9_29340_7782_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A0720402C@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> To: bruno.decraene@orange.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/d5goauWcLG98ws68AqiBnNJpTq0 Cc: "Alvaro Retana \(aretana\)" , "spring@ietf.org" , "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 05:57:51 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D1C40FC2-330B-4A54-8335-11A22B0C6FB6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Hi Alvaro, Support the adoption of this draft. Bruno, I agree =97 it=92d be good to capture (as we go forward) the additional = MPLS requirements. We are currently iterating on a draft relating to the = entropy label requirements, but it=92d be good to give more general = guidance for implementors going forward on these things. This draft = seems like the natural home for such commentary. Kind regards, r. On 24 Sep 2014, at 14:49, bruno.decraene@orange.com wrote: > Hi, > =20 > (as a co-author) I support working group adoption. > =20 > This document defines how the SPRING architecture can be applied to = MPLS with existing hardware & networks and quite limited impact to MPLS = sub-part (e.g. OAM & loadbalancing). IMO this is a very applicable = declination of the SPRING architecture. > =20 > More specific comments: > - Eventually, the doc could list such =93additional=94 MPLS = requirements (e.g. hardware/software ability to push more labels on the = ingress, load-balancing considerations in transit, OAM extensions=85). = Eventually in the section 8 =93Manageability considerations=94 which is = currently empty. > - Last sentence of section 6 =93Segment List History=94 is eventually = historic and need to be removed/updated. > - Security consideration needs to be written. A priori, as the MPLS = principle are unchanged, MPLS SPRING probably does not change much the = security consideration of MPLS networks therefore IMO this is not = blocking for WG adoption. Existing doc on security may need to be = referenced, e.g. RFC 5920 =93Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS = Networks=94, may be saying that as LDP sessions are removed, LDP = security aspects (as discussed in RFC 5036 and RFC 6952) no longer need = to be considered. > =20 > Thanks, > Regards, > Bruno > =20 > =20 > From: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [mailto:aretana@cisco.com]=20 > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:08 PM > To: spring@ietf.org > Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org > Subject: WG Adoption Call for = draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls > =20 > Hi! > =20 > This message officially starts the call for adoption for = draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls. > =20 > Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day = on October 8, 2014. > =20 > Some additional background: This draft describes the instantiation of = Segment Routing on the MPLS data plane. The Segment Routing = Architecture is presented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for = which there is a separate call for adoption) > =20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls > =20 > Thanks! > =20 > Alvaro. > = __________________________________________________________________________= _______________________________________________ >=20 > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations = confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez = recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les = messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, = deforme ou falsifie. Merci. >=20 > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or = privileged information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and = delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have = been modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring --Apple-Mail=_D1C40FC2-330B-4A54-8335-11A22B0C6FB6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Hi = Alvaro,

Support the adoption of this = draft.

Bruno,

I agree = =97 it=92d be good to capture (as we go forward) the additional MPLS = requirements. We are currently iterating on a draft relating to the = entropy label requirements, but it=92d be good to give more general = guidance for implementors going forward on these things. This draft = seems like the natural home for such = commentary.

Kind = regards,
r.

On 24 Sep 2014, at 14:49, = bruno.decraene@orange.com= wrote:

Hi,
 
(as a = co-author) I support working group adoption.
 
This document defines how the = SPRING architecture can be applied to MPLS with existing hardware & = networks and quite limited impact to MPLS sub-part (e.g. OAM & = loadbalancing). IMO this is a very applicable declination of the SPRING = architecture.
 
More = specific comments:
- Eventually, the doc could list = such =93additional=94 MPLS requirements (e.g. hardware/software ability = to push more labels on the ingress, load-balancing considerations in = transit, OAM extensions=85). Eventually in the section 8 =93Manageability = considerations=94 which is currently empty.
- Last = sentence of section 6 =93Segment List History=94 is eventually historic = and need to be removed/updated.
- Security = consideration needs to be written. A priori, as the MPLS principle are = unchanged, MPLS SPRING probably does not change much the security = consideration of MPLS networks therefore IMO this is not blocking for WG = adoption. Existing doc on security may need to be referenced, e.g. RFC = 5920 =93Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks=94, may be saying = that as LDP sessions are removed, LDP security aspects (as discussed in = RFC 5036 and RFC 6952) no longer need to be = considered.
 
Thanks,
Regards,
Bruno
 
 
From: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [mailto:aretana@cisco.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, = 2014 3:08 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org<= br>Subject: WG = Adoption Call for = draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls
 
Hi!
 
This message officially starts the call for adoption = for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls.
 
Please = indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on = October 8, 2014.
 
Some = additional background:  This draft describes the instantiation = of Segment Routing on the MPLS data plane.  The Segment Routing = Architecture is presented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for = which there is a separate call for = adoption)
 
 
Thanks!
 
Alvaro.
_______=
__________________________________________________________________________=
________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations =
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez =
recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages =
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme =
ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged =
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and =
delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have =
been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing = list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

= --Apple-Mail=_D1C40FC2-330B-4A54-8335-11A22B0C6FB6-- From nobody Thu Sep 25 02:23:03 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 153931A6F27 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 02:23:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.635 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.635 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham 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 YiA-icCopgXM for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 02:22:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail13.telekom.de (tcmail13.telekom.de [80.149.113.165]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BCE91A1BA7 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 02:22:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from q4de8psa169.blf.telekom.de ([10.151.13.200]) by tcmail11.telekom.de with ESMTP; 25 Sep 2014 11:22:31 +0200 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,595,1406584800"; d="scan'208,217";a="668143228" Received: from he110889.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.92.130]) by q4de8psazkj.blf.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 25 Sep 2014 11:22:30 +0200 Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([169.254.3.32]) by HE110889.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([fe80::841f:f92c:15ca:8526%16]) with mapi; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:22:30 +0200 From: To: Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:22:29 +0200 Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thread-Index: AQHP1/erEVxtlwjKhU+FJUO3TO8y15wRlE/w Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CA7A7C64CC4ADB458B74477EA99DF6F5031D43E0F7HE111643EMEA1_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ye9A_Kq0aHeIpjdFN1PTeqPL4Hg Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org, spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:23:02 -0000 --_000_CA7A7C64CC4ADB458B74477EA99DF6F5031D43E0F7HE111643EMEA1_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I support adaption as WG document. Von: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Alvaro Retana (= aretana) Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. September 2014 15:02 An: spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org Betreff: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routin= g Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spr= ing-segment-routing. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on Oc= tober 8, 2014. Some additional background: This draft presents the 'Segment Routing Archi= tecture'; it focuses on the terminology and general architecture. draft-fi= lsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls (for which there is separate call for ad= option) describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS data pla= ne. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_CA7A7C64CC4ADB458B74477EA99DF6F5031D43E0F7HE111643EMEA1_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I support a= daption as WG document.

 

 

Von: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@= ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Alvaro Retana (aretana)
Gesendet:= Mittwoch, 24. September 2014 15:02
An: spring@ietf.org
Cc:= draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org
Betreff: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing<= /o:p>

 

=

Hi!

 

This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-fils= fils-spring-segment-routing.

 

Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on = October 8, 2014.

=  

Some addit= ional background:  This draft presents the 'Segment Routing Architectu= re'; it focuses on the terminology and general architecture.  draft-fi= lsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls (for which there is separate call for ad= option) describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS data pla= ne.

 

=

 

Thanks!

 

Alvaro.

= --_000_CA7A7C64CC4ADB458B74477EA99DF6F5031D43E0F7HE111643EMEA1_-- From nobody Thu Sep 25 02:28:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 406EC1A1F73 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 02:28:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.635 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.635 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham 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 IQgynHnwBOd4 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 02:28:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de (tcmail33.telekom.de [80.149.113.247]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9800C1A1C03 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 02:28:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from s4de8nsazdfe010.bmbg.telekom.de ([10.175.246.202]) by tcmail31.telekom.de with ESMTP; 25 Sep 2014 11:28:24 +0200 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,595,1406584800"; d="scan'208,217";a="536581312" Received: from he113443.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.103]) by q4de8nsa015.bmbg.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 25 Sep 2014 11:28:23 +0200 Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([169.254.3.32]) by HE113443.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:28:23 +0200 From: To: Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:28:22 +0200 Thread-Topic: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thread-Index: AQHP1/iB/rpWjvUy80KKMiEjZbS5RpwRlg7Q Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CA7A7C64CC4ADB458B74477EA99DF6F5031D43E109HE111643EMEA1_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/haj8yHeEYnyvxVF3iP-8epkkXVo Cc: spring@ietf.org, draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:28:29 -0000 --_000_CA7A7C64CC4ADB458B74477EA99DF6F5031D43E109HE111643EMEA1_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I support adoption as a WG document. Von: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Alvaro Retana (= aretana) Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. September 2014 15:08 An: spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org Betreff: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routin= g-mpls Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spr= ing-segment-routing-mpls. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on Oc= tober 8, 2014. Some additional background: This draft describes the instantiation of Segm= ent Routing on the MPLS data plane. The Segment Routing Architecture is pr= esented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for which there is a sepa= rate call for adoption) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_CA7A7C64CC4ADB458B74477EA99DF6F5031D43E109HE111643EMEA1_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I support a= doption as a WG document.

=  

 

Von: spring [mailto:spring-bounce= s@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Alvaro Retana (aretana)
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. September 2014 15:08
An: spring@ietf.org
C= c: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org
Betr= eff: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routin= g-mpls

 

Hi!

<= p class=3DMsoNormal> 

This message officially starts the call for adoption for&nbs= p;draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls.

 

Please indicate your position about adopting this draft = by end-of-day on October 8, 2014.

 

Some additional background:  This draft describes the ins= tantiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS data plane.  The Segment Rou= ting Architecture is presented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (fo= r which there is a separate call for adoption)

<= div>

 

 

T= hanks!

 = ;

Alvaro.

= --_000_CA7A7C64CC4ADB458B74477EA99DF6F5031D43E109HE111643EMEA1_-- From nobody Thu Sep 25 03:22:11 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1A7C1A6F9E for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 03:22:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 bWTBZe7A70WF for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 03:22:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F23141A6F81 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 03:22:06 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f793d6d000005356-da-5423eccc8408 Received: from ESESSHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 72.DA.21334.CCCE3245; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 12:22:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESESSMB101.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.19]) by ESESSHC004.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.30]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 12:22:04 +0200 From: Amit Dass To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thread-Index: AQHP1/iB/rpWjvUy80KKMiEjZbS5RpwRpQig Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:22:03 +0000 Message-ID: <2A8B18CA4F90D7498B8F58E7073CAB34628640@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.17] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2A8B18CA4F90D7498B8F58E7073CAB34628640ESESSMB101ericsso_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFuplkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGfG3RvfMG+UQg76TVhZ/f25ltLh2sInV 4viF34wOzB5Tfm9k9Viy5CeTx5fLn9kCmKO4bFJSczLLUov07RK4Mm5v/MJecNC0Yt25gAbG tQZdjJwcEgImElOuLmOFsMUkLtxbz9bFyMUhJHCUUeLY9m3MEM5iRomjT44zgVSxCWhIrF2+ lQXEFhGIkLi67CRYN7NArcSzxknsXYwcHMIC4RJ7pjLClOz82ABVbiRx8tFvNhCbRUBV4teV 3cwgNq+At0TP/i9g9UICehIPO9aA2ZwC+hIbHu9mB7EZgY77fmoNE8QqcYlbT+YzQRwtILFk z3lmCFtU4uXjf6wgJ0gIKEos75eDKM+X6OudwwKxSlDi5MwnLBMYRWchmTQLSdksJGUQcR2J Bbs/sUHY2hLLFr5mhrHPHHjMhCy+gJF9FaNocWpxcW66kbFealFmcnFxfp5eXmrJJkZg/B3c 8lt3B+Pq146HGAU4GJV4eBXKlUOEWBPLiitzDzFKc7AoifMuOjcvWEggPbEkNTs1tSC1KL6o NCe1+BAjEwenVAPj0vrCkAUPGFb/rv2ukzcz1ciS71x6vsbSEM7+v4uLeXtZjL4fNz+dtOXV poToxQJVD1J3LWHrfNyXqzifu9hC+tNC9hPPkqy2XVW/8Gnh0VULP//WCTl9PjaTUV/FuZXp tcKzvpf/5l0r2vQlrS/8hMrsNYIMczjYrn3JSmywk/toKT438v0lJZbijERDLeai4kQAk3KE laACAAA= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/7w6w5yPRUu8rPwuWzOCpA6p5qvM Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:22:10 -0000 --_000_2A8B18CA4F90D7498B8F58E7073CAB34628640ESESSMB101ericsso_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I Support !!! From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (a= retana) Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:08 PM To: spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routin= g-mpls Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spr= ing-segment-routing-mpls. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on Oc= tober 8, 2014. Some additional background: This draft describes the instantiation of Segm= ent Routing on the MPLS data plane. The Segment Routing Architecture is pr= esented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for which there is a sepa= rate call for adoption) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_2A8B18CA4F90D7498B8F58E7073CAB34628640ESESSMB101ericsso_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I Support !!!<= /span>

 <= /p>

From: spring [= mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (aretana)
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:08 PM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment= -routing-mpls

 

Hi!

 

This message officially sta= rts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mp= ls.

 

Please indicate your positi= on about adopting this draft by end-of-day on October 8, 2014.

 

Some additional background:=  This draft describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on th= e MPLS data plane.  The Segment Routing Architecture is presented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for which there is a separate ca= ll for adoption)

 

 

Thanks!

 

Alvaro.

--_000_2A8B18CA4F90D7498B8F58E7073CAB34628640ESESSMB101ericsso_-- From nobody Thu Sep 25 03:49:59 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 344A61A6F88 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 03:49:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.286 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 5X82mwP7wRC4 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 03:49:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51B9A1A02EA for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 03:49:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5627; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1411642194; x=1412851794; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=3NJWF1J3diiFUaMVEdXDJCiQAh9/iHxywqYX5UjiEJ4=; b=btx3B/kOGXoLpM6XY7qahoSnVNng6aw6d7pbf1pdgxkVf8ahOgKnTo9N tVNFBQxTDdETFmEkw6dc4pILxXkhW43qRLBoBKb1jrfbx5oNqBpFCzZIL /Y/zNTTOOsUdNV8RlAzWcVyYQrvCe1DOs7MSUWFLtkKO+7hy2yu0hV8TU I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AoQGAHHyI1StJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABggkhGU1cEgn2BHMRigW2HThlwFgF6hAMBAgQdBlYSAQgEDQECAQIoAwIEMBQDBgoEAQ0FiD4NrDGWGAEXkA0RDYJygVMFj0aCGIQ6hwmBYZNzg2JsgUiBAgEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,596,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="357878290" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Sep 2014 10:49:53 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8PAnrVg028614 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:49:53 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.78]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 05:49:53 -0500 From: "Carlos Campana (ccampana)" To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thread-Index: AQHP2K5vn9U8elkdPESeE2W5a7ImKA== Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:49:52 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.4.140807 x-originating-ip: [10.89.10.14] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D049796463A12ccampanaciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/NtOiGYGKlo8UHuYmkiLg0rmviTo Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:49:56 -0000 --_000_D049796463A12ccampanaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGkgQWx2YXJvDQoNCiAgU3VwcG9ydA0KDQpSZWdhcmRzDQpDYXJsb3MNCg0KDQpGcm9tOiBBbHZh cm8gUmV0YW5hIDxhcmV0YW5hQGNpc2NvLmNvbTxtYWlsdG86YXJldGFuYUBjaXNjby5jb20+Pg0K RGF0ZTogV2VkbmVzZGF5LCBTZXB0ZW1iZXIgMjQsIDIwMTQgYXQgMTA6MDEgQU0NClRvOiAic3By aW5nQGlldGYub3JnPG1haWx0bzpzcHJpbmdAaWV0Zi5vcmc+IiA8c3ByaW5nQGlldGYub3JnPG1h aWx0bzpzcHJpbmdAaWV0Zi5vcmc+Pg0KQ2M6ICJkcmFmdC1maWxzZmlscy1zcHJpbmctc2VnbWVu dC1yb3V0aW5nQHRvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnPG1haWx0bzpkcmFmdC1maWxzZmlscy1zcHJpbmctc2Vn bWVudC1yb3V0aW5nQHRvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnPiIgPGRyYWZ0LWZpbHNmaWxzLXNwcmluZy1zZWdt ZW50LXJvdXRpbmdAdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmc8bWFpbHRvOmRyYWZ0LWZpbHNmaWxzLXNwcmluZy1z ZWdtZW50LXJvdXRpbmdAdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmc+Pg0KU3ViamVjdDogW3NwcmluZ10gV0cgQWRv cHRpb24gQ2FsbCBmb3IgZHJhZnQtZmlsc2ZpbHMtc3ByaW5nLXNlZ21lbnQtcm91dGluZw0KDQpI aSENCg0KVGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlIG9mZmljaWFsbHkgc3RhcnRzIHRoZSBjYWxsIGZvciBhZG9wdGlv biBmb3IgZHJhZnQtZmlsc2ZpbHMtc3ByaW5nLXNlZ21lbnQtcm91dGluZy4NCg0KUGxlYXNlIGlu ZGljYXRlIHlvdXIgcG9zaXRpb24gYWJvdXQgYWRvcHRpbmcgdGhpcyBkcmFmdCBieSBlbmQtb2Yt ZGF5IG9uIE9jdG9iZXIgOCwgMjAxNC4NCg0KU29tZSBhZGRpdGlvbmFsIGJhY2tncm91bmQ6ICBU aGlzIGRyYWZ0IHByZXNlbnRzIHRoZSAnU2VnbWVudCBSb3V0aW5nIEFyY2hpdGVjdHVyZSc7IGl0 IGZvY3VzZXMgb24gdGhlIHRlcm1pbm9sb2d5IGFuZCBnZW5lcmFsIGFyY2hpdGVjdHVyZS4gIGRy YWZ0LWZpbHNmaWxzLXNwcmluZy1zZWdtZW50LXJvdXRpbmctbXBscyAoZm9yIHdoaWNoIHRoZXJl IGlzIHNlcGFyYXRlIGNhbGwgZm9yIGFkb3B0aW9uKSBkZXNjcmliZXMgdGhlIGluc3RhbnRpYXRp b24gb2YgU2VnbWVudCBSb3V0aW5nIG9uIHRoZSBNUExTIGRhdGEgcGxhbmUuDQoNCmh0dHA6Ly90 b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LWZpbHNmaWxzLXNwcmluZy1zZWdtZW50LXJvdXRpbmcN Cg0KVGhhbmtzIQ0KDQpBbHZhcm8uDQo= --_000_D049796463A12ccampanaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWw+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIgY29udGVudD0i dGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjwvaGVhZD4NCjxib2R5IHN0eWxlPSJ3b3JkLXdy YXA6IGJyZWFrLXdvcmQ7IC13ZWJraXQtbmJzcC1tb2RlOiBzcGFjZTsgLXdlYmtpdC1saW5lLWJy ZWFrOiBhZnRlci13aGl0ZS1zcGFjZTsgY29sb3I6IHJnYigwLCAwLCAwKTsgZm9udC1zaXplOiAx NHB4OyBmb250LWZhbWlseTogQ2FsaWJyaSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZjsiPg0KPGRpdj5IaSBBbHZhcm88 L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+PGJyPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2PiZuYnNwOyBTdXBwb3J0PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2 Pjxicj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj5SZWdhcmRzPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2PkNhcmxvczwvZGl2Pg0KPGRp dj48YnI+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+PGJyPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8c3BhbiBpZD0iT0xLX1NSQ19CT0RZ X1NFQ1RJT04iPg0KPGRpdiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTsgZm9udC1zaXplOjEx cHQ7IHRleHQtYWxpZ246bGVmdDsgY29sb3I6YmxhY2s7IEJPUkRFUi1CT1RUT006IG1lZGl1bSBu b25lOyBCT1JERVItTEVGVDogbWVkaXVtIG5vbmU7IFBBRERJTkctQk9UVE9NOiAwaW47IFBBRERJ TkctTEVGVDogMGluOyBQQURESU5HLVJJR0hUOiAwaW47IEJPUkRFUi1UT1A6ICNiNWM0ZGYgMXB0 IHNvbGlkOyBCT1JERVItUklHSFQ6IG1lZGl1bSBub25lOyBQQURESU5HLVRPUDogM3B0Ij4NCjxz cGFuIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXdlaWdodDpib2xkIj5Gcm9tOiA8L3NwYW4+QWx2YXJvIFJldGFuYSAm bHQ7PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOmFyZXRhbmFAY2lzY28uY29tIj5hcmV0YW5hQGNpc2NvLmNvbTwv YT4mZ3Q7PGJyPg0KPHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtd2VpZ2h0OmJvbGQiPkRhdGU6IDwvc3Bhbj5X ZWRuZXNkYXksIFNlcHRlbWJlciAyNCwgMjAxNCBhdCAxMDowMSBBTTxicj4NCjxzcGFuIHN0eWxl PSJmb250LXdlaWdodDpib2xkIj5UbzogPC9zcGFuPiZxdW90OzxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpzcHJp bmdAaWV0Zi5vcmciPnNwcmluZ0BpZXRmLm9yZzwvYT4mcXVvdDsgJmx0OzxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0 bzpzcHJpbmdAaWV0Zi5vcmciPnNwcmluZ0BpZXRmLm9yZzwvYT4mZ3Q7PGJyPg0KPHNwYW4gc3R5 bGU9ImZvbnQtd2VpZ2h0OmJvbGQiPkNjOiA8L3NwYW4+JnF1b3Q7PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOmRy YWZ0LWZpbHNmaWxzLXNwcmluZy1zZWdtZW50LXJvdXRpbmdAdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmciPmRyYWZ0 LWZpbHNmaWxzLXNwcmluZy1zZWdtZW50LXJvdXRpbmdAdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmc8L2E+JnF1b3Q7 ICZsdDs8YSBocmVmPSJtYWlsdG86ZHJhZnQtZmlsc2ZpbHMtc3ByaW5nLXNlZ21lbnQtcm91dGlu Z0B0b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZyI+ZHJhZnQtZmlsc2ZpbHMtc3ByaW5nLXNlZ21lbnQtcm91dGluZ0B0 b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZzwvYT4mZ3Q7PGJyPg0KPHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtd2VpZ2h0OmJvbGQi PlN1YmplY3Q6IDwvc3Bhbj5bc3ByaW5nXSBXRyBBZG9wdGlvbiBDYWxsIGZvciBkcmFmdC1maWxz Zmlscy1zcHJpbmctc2VnbWVudC1yb3V0aW5nPGJyPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pjxicj4NCjwvZGl2 Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9IndvcmQtd3JhcDogYnJlYWstd29yZDsgLXdlYmtpdC1uYnNw LW1vZGU6IHNwYWNlOyAtd2Via2l0LWxpbmUtYnJlYWs6IGFmdGVyLXdoaXRlLXNwYWNlOyBjb2xv cjogcmdiKDAsIDAsIDApOyBmb250LXNpemU6IDE0cHg7IGZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiBDYWxpYnJpLCBz YW5zLXNlcmlmOyAiPg0KPGRpdj5IaSE8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+PGJyPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2PlRo aXMgbWVzc2FnZSBvZmZpY2lhbGx5IHN0YXJ0cyB0aGUgY2FsbCBmb3IgYWRvcHRpb24gZm9yJm5i c3A7ZHJhZnQtZmlsc2ZpbHMtc3ByaW5nLXNlZ21lbnQtcm91dGluZy48L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+PGJy Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2PlBsZWFzZSBpbmRpY2F0ZSB5b3VyIHBvc2l0aW9uIGFib3V0IGFkb3B0 aW5nIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQgYnkgZW5kLW9mLWRheSBvbiBPY3RvYmVyIDgsIDIwMTQuPC9kaXY+DQo8 ZGl2Pjxicj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj5Tb21lIGFkZGl0aW9uYWwgYmFja2dyb3VuZDogJm5ic3A7 VGhpcyBkcmFmdCBwcmVzZW50cyB0aGUgJ1NlZ21lbnQgUm91dGluZyBBcmNoaXRlY3R1cmUnOyBp dCBmb2N1c2VzIG9uIHRoZSB0ZXJtaW5vbG9neSBhbmQgZ2VuZXJhbCBhcmNoaXRlY3R1cmUuICZu YnNwO2RyYWZ0LWZpbHNmaWxzLXNwcmluZy1zZWdtZW50LXJvdXRpbmctbXBscyAoZm9yIHdoaWNo IHRoZXJlIGlzIHNlcGFyYXRlIGNhbGwgZm9yIGFkb3B0aW9uKSBkZXNjcmliZXMgdGhlIGluc3Rh bnRpYXRpb24NCiBvZiBTZWdtZW50IFJvdXRpbmcgb24gdGhlIE1QTFMgZGF0YSBwbGFuZS48L2Rp dj4NCjxkaXY+PGJyPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2PjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9y Zy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LWZpbHNmaWxzLXNwcmluZy1zZWdtZW50LXJvdXRpbmciPmh0dHA6Ly90b29s cy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LWZpbHNmaWxzLXNwcmluZy1zZWdtZW50LXJvdXRpbmc8L2E+ PC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pjxicj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj5UaGFua3MhPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pjxicj4N CjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj5BbHZhcm8uPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9zcGFuPg0KPC9i b2R5Pg0KPC9odG1sPg0K --_000_D049796463A12ccampanaciscocom_-- From nobody Thu Sep 25 04:08:42 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C13311A02EA for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 04:08:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham 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 4i5a6SXwDlJN for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 04:08:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com (mail-ig0-f170.google.com [209.85.213.170]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C44061A1A72 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 04:08:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ig0-f170.google.com with SMTP id a13so8358535igq.1 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 04:08:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Rg5UV08nnngsokpM0ZW4uhyBD+nHwH7VH8evjru2tO8=; b=fNurjGQzvRo9sW7kZnpGSDFNdtMQxUavqcmsXqAtRG7TGJZdb/9UMW/fl1O0gtOeav Y55Wd/G5zwCBLRx9GTja+1jNWvNLbXzEV644Akxqxz/Kv6Oii/Wn3AJbY7wPG+NCpGrr JE/A6jM2c41lsiNJEqp3Yxwn9J65vcu8KtoihKkftxCk2fp3VRgzkdjddUuKXSyKwKEw 0t1mo7EtJriueCjT7/oY04hsc5n3h18P3Dq+TG3tIkIePgyqh+GoMNm05e4H6jzDaE/J lSH0KOUa3oUqyItvJht6QwwhNe1qzVSd2eVnx7GrMQUTZupJBGKSynerwZhGA6EX9SzO QDFw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkzCLqDZmc4TMt4mYnMX6gUwUs3Mp+fjWhNeb9bA+Qbf0Uz2y1b2iCzlCoV+rXHn+aef7Im MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.80.116 with SMTP id q20mr3674351igx.22.1411643317090; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 04:08:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.134.193 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 04:08:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:08:37 +0300 Message-ID: From: Saku Ytti To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/RjwGgisThV6iHD0HZoPgv69azsY Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:08:40 -0000 Support with hopes rest of the providers pick this up, so we can start capitalizing it on our network. On 24 September 2014 16:07, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > Hi! > > This message officially starts the call for adoption for > draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls. > > Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on > October 8, 2014. > > Some additional background: This draft describes the instantiation of > Segment Routing on the MPLS data plane. The Segment Routing Architecture is > presented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for which there is a > separate call for adoption) > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > -- ++ytti From nobody Thu Sep 25 04:09:17 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C50721A1A8A for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 04:09:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham 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 VJECCeGnLMfL for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 04:09:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-f176.google.com (mail-ig0-f176.google.com [209.85.213.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21B601A1A72 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 04:09:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ig0-f176.google.com with SMTP id hn15so8230229igb.9 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 04:09:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=UfrcCUaEkt/HKnf6+DzqrQRgk6DYjjxm6aoPOIehz5I=; b=hMmedOPVSTDFYgifnoQD9EO1SS9SHF7xFejymfB/YIwPE7ZLXn79mmbvVxBpK12Uzg rrREDstkMlBOfuydFruxnnn/qAj7GJ0zQDEkkGywZzQji626pCie5E8RY/k4Ux16wc8P 7/5vXHoGoZ/oKYRI6BbTCMwfmohudJwP8pCdAVLPGFnKe/y+ifxe9/bP+82TIU9lmzmr HnJh8b7ARQx5SUdhv6ahOVIf+G6XbewfatXz9ZIWZmN9icf9seERG4azeaW7x9qhAolk iAcne4k7lsg/HiJ1kar7jsa8fZ1xvsLJVfhVDf3WfFo9wFYcMN4Somq5bN65CvgwO2Cs wrCw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmZ6QC3rk6lcG0aB3Wyzanh9CG3yHiuvwLBZsL4Z/MOj/C6wuFzQLeSRNj0skVWoTuwf8gD MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.138.1 with SMTP id iq1mr18248438icc.11.1411643350542; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 04:09:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.134.193 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 04:09:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:09:10 +0300 Message-ID: From: Saku Ytti To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ZQfLyMxdeHgWB01s_RKpBpw-tTw Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:09:14 -0000 Support with hopes rest of the providers pick this up, so we can start capitalizing it on our network. On 24 September 2014 16:01, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > Hi! > > This message officially starts the call for adoption for > draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing. > > Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on > October 8, 2014. > > Some additional background: This draft presents the 'Segment Routing > Architecture'; it focuses on the terminology and general architecture. > draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls (for which there is separate call > for adoption) describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS > data plane. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. -- ++ytti From nobody Thu Sep 25 06:18:42 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76B501A0056 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:18:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.286 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 jn6yqH6ryO_y for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:18:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DB341A00A9 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:18:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4468; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1411651100; x=1412860700; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=yVAUJZdnUqvvOb6d9ZitEsY+8qtjTU5b0Gseds7Rut0=; b=TSSI5L6iSjMoq4tauYRE0L91pLrSp3TUUWM1mdaVctUV8XHgUcxCeDpg CPk8KtOKfrztrlaeEyE4dPb453q1YBrK13zyx6AKGdkAfX6U4QHxXCisQ XEDxZOfum5eiSgJ0x1Pe697qjIrF9cdNwlzI7OgtRymkqrlwLRzRXONZA I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjkQACIVJFStJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABggkhGU1cEhBnEYIFth06BBRYBe4QDAQIEHVwSAQgEDQECAQIoORQDBgoEAQ0FiD4NwjABF5ANEQ2ERQWPSIIYhDqHCYFik3SDY2yBSIECAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.04,597,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="81175527" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Sep 2014 13:18:19 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8PDIJIG014724 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:18:19 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.7.166]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 08:18:19 -0500 From: "Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thread-Index: AQHP2MMsEVxtlwjKhU+FJUO3TO8y1w== Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:18:18 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.2.140509 x-originating-ip: [10.21.76.18] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D0498E356EA5Enaikumarciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/SDnUjJVOCSj57aqJhEoVcnLpxw8 Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:18:26 -0000 --_000_D0498E356EA5Enaikumarciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I support the adoption of this document as WG document. Thanks, Nagendra From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" > Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 at 9:01 AM To: "spring@ietf.org" > Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" > Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routin= g Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spr= ing-segment-routing. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on Oc= tober 8, 2014. Some additional background: This draft presents the 'Segment Routing Archi= tecture'; it focuses on the terminology and general architecture. draft-fi= lsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls (for which there is separate call for ad= option) describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS data pla= ne. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_D0498E356EA5Enaikumarciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

I support the adoption of this document as WG document.

Thanks,
Nagendra

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)= " <aretana@cisco.com> Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2014= at 9:01 AM
To: "spring@ietf.org" <= spring@ietf.org>
Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segmen= t-routing@tools.ietf.org" <draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@t= ools.ietf.org>
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call = for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing

Hi!

This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-fi= lsfils-spring-segment-routing.

Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day = on October 8, 2014.

Some additional background:  This draft presents the 'Segment Rou= ting Architecture'; it focuses on the terminology and general architecture.=  draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls (for which there is separ= ate call for adoption) describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS data plane.


Thanks!

Alvaro.
 --_000_D0498E356EA5Enaikumarciscocom_-- From nobody Thu Sep 25 06:19:09 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56D001A00AB for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:19:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.286 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 mwxQtm_4k6dz for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:19:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCAAE1A008F for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:19:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4369; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1411651146; x=1412860746; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=FItwz418ibimMfDj+H2ulTUjFjvLB0jVaGPnnXZlLUM=; b=OmLkBnTW7IMeBso8Xgnc6BW02z9qI747p69Xms+n71Ouol6yVkP+yhuk 5+7ob7dbMn/kSn/QkpWSSWm2J8hnGOxbhChgR+v3v+ZFK1FKHClJALa4Z IW3z1BVRFrPrNJDh+bY53Ov0/TwDgyHokqFjvNd3V5oXG4Nio2zEy4lvA I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmQFACIVJFStJA2N/2dsb2JhbABggkhGU1cEyHmBbYdOAoEDFgF7hAMBAQEEHVwQAgEIBA0BAgECKAcyFAMGCAIEAQ0FiD4NwjABF5ANEQcGhEUFj0iCGIQ6hwmBYpN0g2NsgUiBAgEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.04,597,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="81175781" Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Sep 2014 13:19:06 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com [173.37.183.88]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8PDJ6sO027850 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:19:06 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.7.166]) by xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([173.37.183.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 08:19:05 -0500 From: "Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thread-Index: AQHP2MNIPBb+hCdCg0uFnwLAXH9FSQ== Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:19:05 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.2.140509 x-originating-ip: [10.21.76.18] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D0498E706EA67naikumarciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/5SFPKkvZ6xqFWvNHVDIR_qPgYb4 Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:19:08 -0000 --_000_D0498E706EA67naikumarciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I support the adoption. Thanks, Nagendra From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" > Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 at 9:07 AM To: "spring@ietf.org" > Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" > Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routin= g-mpls Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spr= ing-segment-routing-mpls. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on Oc= tober 8, 2014. Some additional background: This draft describes the instantiation of Segm= ent Routing on the MPLS data plane. The Segment Routing Architecture is pr= esented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for which there is a sepa= rate call for adoption) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_D0498E706EA67naikumarciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <861FC2A92FBFF44F87C466691A4EFD78@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

I support the adoption.

Thanks,
Nagendra

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)= " <aretana@cisco.com> Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2014= at 9:07 AM
To: "spring@ietf.org" <= spring@ietf.org>
Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-s= egment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" <draft-filsfils-spring-se= gment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call = for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls

Hi!

This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-fi= lsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls.

Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day = on October 8, 2014.

Some additional background:  This draft describes the instan= tiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS data plane.  The Segment Routin= g Architecture is presented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for w= hich there is a separate call for adoption)


Thanks!

Alvaro.
 --_000_D0498E706EA67naikumarciscocom_-- From Tim.LaBerge@microsoft.com Wed Sep 24 17:44:48 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6C101A1B81 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 17:44:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 2pCzwNWfceMp for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 17:44:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1on0741.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::741]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 783F71A1B80 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 17:44:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BY2PR03MB457.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.141.141) by BY2PR03MB459.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.141.147) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1034.13; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:44:22 +0000 Received: from BY2PR03MB457.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.141.141]) by BY2PR03MB457.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.141.141]) with mapi id 15.00.1034.003; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:44:22 +0000 From: Tim LaBerge To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thread-Index: AQHP1/iB/rpWjvUy80KKMiEjZbS5RpwRA0xQ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:44:22 +0000 Message-ID: <109ddd5edd5d4e409bbd8a9fce9b280c@BY2PR03MB457.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e8:ee31::2] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR03MB459; x-forefront-prvs: 0345CFD558 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(189002)(199003)(377454003)(41574002)(97736003)(15202345003)(19580395003)(83322001)(76176999)(33646002)(19580405001)(106116001)(19617315012)(16236675004)(74316001)(85306004)(230783001)(108616004)(105586002)(107046002)(76482002)(99396003)(21056001)(120916001)(19609705001)(77982003)(106356001)(86362001)(90102001)(85852003)(50986999)(83072002)(81542003)(76576001)(79102003)(20776003)(80022003)(81342003)(74662003)(87936001)(2656002)(99286002)(95666004)(86612001)(15975445006)(2501002)(46102003)(54356999)(74502003)(92566001)(19625215002)(31966008)(10300001)(4396001)(19300405004)(101416001)(64706001)(24736002)(3826002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR03MB459; H:BY2PR03MB457.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_109ddd5edd5d4e409bbd8a9fce9b280cBY2PR03MB457namprd03pro_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/WdsB1J_k5Er2gSm031hSefbs9x0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 08:18:24 -0700 Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:50:00 -0000 --_000_109ddd5edd5d4e409bbd8a9fce9b280cBY2PR03MB457namprd03pro_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support Tim LaBerge From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (a= retana) Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 6:08 AM To: spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routin= g-mpls Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spr= ing-segment-routing-mpls. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on Oc= tober 8, 2014. Some additional background: This draft describes the instantiation of Segm= ent Routing on the MPLS data plane. The Segment Routing Architecture is pr= esented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for which there is a sepa= rate call for adoption) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_109ddd5edd5d4e409bbd8a9fce9b280cBY2PR03MB457namprd03pro_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Support=

 <= /p>

Tim LaBerge

 

From: spring= [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (aretana)
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 6:08 AM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment= -routing-mpls

 

Hi!

 

This message officially sta= rts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mp= ls.

 

Please indicate your positi= on about adopting this draft by end-of-day on October 8, 2014.

 

Some additional background:=  This draft describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on th= e MPLS data plane.  The Segment Routing Architecture is presented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for which there is a separate ca= ll for adoption)

 

 

Thanks!

 

Alvaro.

--_000_109ddd5edd5d4e409bbd8a9fce9b280cBY2PR03MB457namprd03pro_-- From nobody Thu Sep 25 13:48:08 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD0561A0351 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:48:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.312 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 FcAQ4oPdlGy0 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:48:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f181.google.com (mail-lb0-f181.google.com [209.85.217.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C09A1A0371 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:48:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f181.google.com with SMTP id b6so8258717lbj.12 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:48:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=q9GoAEbT3IkpJs8rUbkY4kidd5VYWNJ4jAwM2C7uNFA=; b=ZuSlmFt0KUvnc18AJkfDDqr7p45C1E80win3RSr4xQ5CEqQ0OQtjb9AUF38sG3Fnqy f+d4HfM7zXIlE0NLSSm7DeurNbdIWSd2wDaieQmWle69FOKMA5GMq9lx0EwQyrcq8Qe4 dpIq0AN6xeAx7bq8EhWa+VL6PD7SorFY7XkPaJcHsUxCkIZzSzifYnJrW0DiZOv1q9K4 f9l8JPQ3kk8mSP8Ao7u9ui1ZYOUkYbGP9lDlBa1Saj42+LNV2FVpQCpACUIT6jTVrSSo KEIftys5nDtnx9jA+FnCM6zEvwcqRYwoB9gYqWT5jbjLLkcZCuG/ioUZABlanNxCJETm H2Nw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnj8I+QcG9Mb+Rz/qmFpREHrSx0Vt8pk4Ql2fsRVVzcM+pjhoSidXKA0g6V6yLgRYs7sVcv MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.205.38 with SMTP id ld6mr5438086lac.97.1411678082540; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:48:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.150.73 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:48:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [2607:fea8:840:0:dc4c:71df:a4f0:974a] Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:48:02 -0400 Message-ID: From: Ida Leung To: spring@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11349bb2a5b9d10503e9eaee Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/iqXAt8Ju6aWDrz-wozo1Dvg6FE8 Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 20:48:06 -0000 --001a11349bb2a5b9d10503e9eaee Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I support the adoption of the draft. ...Ida --001a11349bb2a5b9d10503e9eaee Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
I support the adoption of the draft.

...Ida
--001a11349bb2a5b9d10503e9eaee-- From nobody Thu Sep 25 14:50:29 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 238921A034F for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:50:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 0CXmOL8JOvju for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:50:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x22b.google.com (mail-ig0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13B201A035F for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:50:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ig0-f171.google.com with SMTP id hn15so9285733igb.4 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:50:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=JfDkpkwNlNSrLj7tB2Zx/LviuQZ/jMOD1PObUjCP/DE=; b=Zt38cVcuxpZfRUPBzF7ZlbcQ+nvX9yxVBzSTj2FKCqy5z/pJ6/tTZDiMIQBVHnn5Ob bLnoV5KCcF0Mnsuc7nHrBwJJabGZ5sRH1Jn3uF3tpjZNNvhQUV5t4Fl4e5xgggBBaTfc x5cUhQCRD+Gv3is96g5xc4/Di9nGlgabLLSfhiOWmOLQ5erY5CzRL6Bd3ncNh2skurO+ KbMeuWn0e2X9dqRHoMVrEP5N2/TRZ4B7i72TWosGZjSF4XcPO+baAPfxlPLu8XnU2gHc +fcFXhR2YRWDaXn5Lr/s/sXiZ6Flsg/rLJMJoMjVHRBXAVT1aPszZu+VfYL0gJ/ru6tq ZoFQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.73.130 with SMTP id l2mr25768831igv.9.1411681821443; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:50:21 -0700 (PDT) Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.166.8 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:50:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 23:50:21 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: VqrSM32XTVT9kXC3k-ree4rr-Y4 Message-ID: From: Robert Raszuk To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01160edc80cb5a0503eac92f Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/pq8XPeiybGhLrtR-AtciyBQ27UA Cc: "spring@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] IPR Claims related to draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 21:50:23 -0000 --089e01160edc80cb5a0503eac92f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Alvaro, I=E2=80=99m not aware of an IPR relating to this draft. Kind regards, r. On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > Hi! > > In parallel to the WGLC for this draft, I want to formally ask the > authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version of t= he > draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether or not you ar= e > aware of any relevant IPR. So far there are no related disclosures. The > draft will not progress (pending the results of the WGLC) until we have > received a response from each author. > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > > --089e01160edc80cb5a0503eac92f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Alvaro,

I=E2=80=99m not aware of an IPR relating to this draft.<= /div>

<= div style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Kind regards,
r.
=

On Tue, Sep= 23, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aretana@cisco.com> wrote:
Hi!

In parallel to the WGLC for this draft,=C2=A0I want to formally ask th= e authors (no additional contributors are listed in the latest version of t= he draft) to please respond to this message indicating whether or not you a= re aware of any relevant IPR.=C2=A0 So far there are no related disclosures.=C2=A0 The draft will not progress (pendi= ng the results of the WGLC) until we have received a response from each aut= hor.

Thanks!

Alvaro.


--089e01160edc80cb5a0503eac92f-- From nobody Thu Sep 25 15:13:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E4451A1A0A for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 15:13:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -115.286 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-115.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham 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 LF3wr4W0brdy for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 15:13:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADEAA1A1A07 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 15:13:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8394; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1411683228; x=1412892828; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=qbuKH+bVGFGdNh3A7sYKZqzGzt8pntc99bO34arQS2o=; b=HjKeBKHGiuIx1qAyEIHhtyTEsLDh8xWy7OCA0dE2KpXECNk1CWDygyjP VNGhKgLiMcNFS8F6ejRwLie6KS7CSqiwLr1k/8DFWoBMWfMblgT4/OrdA PedeBq/IFXglbwDcguN+kjrA0aQh3OKh9ZVZUeUpf4S5Ucl2b1lEqzAW+ 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkoFADeTJFStJV2U/2dsb2JhbABggkgjI1NXBMhAgW2HTgKBBhYBe4QDAQEBBB0QTBACAQgRAQMBAQsdBzIUAwYIAgQBDQUIiDYBDMFfARePbTEGAQaDKIEdBY9IghiEOohrk3SDY2yBSIECAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,599,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="358242415" Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Sep 2014 22:13:48 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com [173.36.12.84]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8PMDlVd028777 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:13:47 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com ([173.36.12.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 17:13:47 -0500 From: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thread-Index: AQHP1/erEVxtlwjKhU+FJUO3TO8y15wSa8JA Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:13:46 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [161.44.212.74] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943A3DA7B2xmbalnx01ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ys9O1dc51AyV63IufpIVdfnJjjE Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:13:51 -0000 --_000_CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943A3DA7B2xmbalnx01ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Alvaro, Yes/Support the adoption of draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing by the WG= . Thanks! -Nobo From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (a= retana) Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:02 AM To: spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routin= g Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spr= ing-segment-routing. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on Oc= tober 8, 2014. Some additional background: This draft presents the 'Segment Routing Archi= tecture'; it focuses on the terminology and general architecture. draft-fi= lsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls (for which there is separate call for ad= option) describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on the MPLS data pla= ne. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943A3DA7B2xmbalnx01ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Alvaro,

 <= /p>

Yes/Support the adoption = of draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing by the WG.

 <= /p>

Thanks!=

 <= /p>

-Nobo

 <= /p>

From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (aretana)
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:02 AM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment= -routing

 

Hi!

 

This message officially sta= rts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing.

 

Please indicate your positi= on about adopting this draft by end-of-day on October 8, 2014.

 

Some additional background:=  This draft presents the 'Segment Routing Architecture'; it focuses o= n the terminology and general architecture.  draft-filsfils-spring-seg= ment-routing-mpls (for which there is separate call for adoption) describes the instantiatio= n of Segment Routing on the MPLS data plane.

 

 

Thanks!

 

Alvaro.

--_000_CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943A3DA7B2xmbalnx01ciscoc_-- From nobody Thu Sep 25 15:14:24 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 916B61A1A0F for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 15:14:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -115.286 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-115.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham 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 EvdU7qu9HNgm for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 15:14:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03ACB1A1A01 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 15:14:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8504; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1411683251; x=1412892851; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=/Am9TCCFOXe3XwcdYS09MWfuSXWxI7qgrLzPOXIgAcI=; b=i2DRQN/oFU5OqW7KaCiuSjHS2aVyPD6O/FMNPQcUyVcfe+6C6TzDdSbZ mCL+xJxNllxgK0hC1VJd48sIoXKRUjgr2Bk2Jb4hVQsJrUil+iosWqbhK c3dBP1AkM4BqIKn5WvIItFKfKh3Lc1/pFEQ+y5BkC9/8bUA+qbg+RgbM2 I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkoFAL+SJFStJA2D/2dsb2JhbABggkgjI1NXBMhAgW2HTgKBBhYBe4QDAQEBBB0QTBACAQgRAQMBAQsdBzIUAwYIAgQBDQUIiDYBDMFdARePbTEGAQaDKIEdBY9IghiEOohrk3SDY2yBSIECAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,599,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="358272212" Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Sep 2014 22:14:10 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8PMEABd023388 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:14:10 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 17:14:10 -0500 From: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thread-Index: AQHP1/iB/rpWjvUy80KKMiEjZbS5RpwSa7mA Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:14:08 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [161.44.212.74] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943A3DA7C2xmbalnx01ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/oFSY7tQ6pLGMlLDkiV5R5yR49xs Cc: "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 22:14:17 -0000 --_000_CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943A3DA7C2xmbalnx01ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Alvaro, Yes/Support the adoption of draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls by t= he WG. Thanks! -Nobo From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (a= retana) Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:08 AM To: spring@ietf.org Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routin= g-mpls Hi! This message officially starts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spr= ing-segment-routing-mpls. Please indicate your position about adopting this draft by end-of-day on Oc= tober 8, 2014. Some additional background: This draft describes the instantiation of Segm= ent Routing on the MPLS data plane. The Segment Routing Architecture is pr= esented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for which there is a sepa= rate call for adoption) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thanks! Alvaro. --_000_CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943A3DA7C2xmbalnx01ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Alvaro,

 <= /p>

Yes/Support the adoption = of draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls by the WG.<= /p>

 <= /p>

Thanks!=

 <= /p>

-Nobo

 <= /p>

 <= /p>

From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (aretana)
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:08 AM
To: spring@ietf.org
Cc: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call for draft-filsfils-spring-segment= -routing-mpls

 

Hi!

 

This message officially sta= rts the call for adoption for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mp= ls.

 

Please indicate your positi= on about adopting this draft by end-of-day on October 8, 2014.

 

Some additional background:=  This draft describes the instantiation of Segment Routing on th= e MPLS data plane.  The Segment Routing Architecture is presented in draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing (for which there is a separate ca= ll for adoption)

 

 

Thanks!

 

Alvaro.

--_000_CECE764681BE964CBE1DFF78F3CDD3943A3DA7C2xmbalnx01ciscoc_-- From nobody Fri Sep 26 07:11:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 386731A8897; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 07:10:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 hzRxc25ng86w; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 07:10:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0105.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.105]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC7E91A6FA9; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 07:10:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.23.27) by BLUPR05MB289.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.23.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1039.15; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 14:10:44 +0000 Received: from BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.23.27]) by BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.23.27]) with mapi id 15.00.1039.011; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 14:10:44 +0000 From: Chris Bowers To: "spring@ietf.org" , "isis-wg@ietf.org" , "ospf@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-bowers-spring-advertising-lsps-with-sr-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHP2OvQFL5Yiqc+HkqeM+vB/XjqmZwTYirA Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 14:10:44 +0000 Message-ID: <82ba0346d2de44b7ac3533328012fa7d@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <20140925180907.27662.88544.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20140925180907.27662.88544.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [66.129.239.11] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BLUPR05MB289; x-forefront-prvs: 03468CBA43 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(37854004)(199003)(377454003)(377424004)(189002)(13464003)(83322001)(2201001)(19580395003)(19580405001)(92566001)(101416001)(76482002)(105586002)(106116001)(31966008)(85306004)(64706001)(4396001)(15202345003)(86362001)(79102003)(81542003)(81342003)(74662003)(80022003)(120916001)(66066001)(46102003)(20776003)(95666004)(74502003)(10300001)(87936001)(85852003)(108616004)(77982003)(99286002)(107046002)(83072002)(107886001)(15975445006)(99396003)(2656002)(54356999)(230783001)(76176999)(2501002)(21056001)(74316001)(76576001)(50986999)(97736003)(33646002)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR05MB289; H:BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/1RNZ2sbCQ3sHHnLLHD8u4HBZrnM Subject: [spring] FW: New Version Notification for draft-bowers-spring-advertising-lsps-with-sr-00.txt X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 14:10:49 -0000 VGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBkZXNjcmliZXMgc2V2ZXJhbCB1c2UgY2FzZXMgZm9yIHVzaW5nIHNlZ21l bnQgcm91dGluZyB0byBhZHZlcnRpc2UgbGFiZWwgYmluZGluZ3MgY29ycmVzcG9uZGluZyB0byBM U1BzLg0KDQpBdCB0aGUgSVNJUyBXRyBtZWV0aW5nIGluIFRvcm9udG8gYXMgd2VsbCBhcyBmb2xs b3ctdXAgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBvbiB0aGUgSVNJUyBhbmQgU1BSSU5HIGxpc3RzLCBzZXZlcmFsIHBl b3BsZSBhZ3JlZWQgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSBpcyBhIG5lZWQgZm9yIGEgc2VwYXJhdGUgKG9yIGFkZGl0 aW9uYWwpIGRvY3VtZW50IGluIHRoZSBTUFJJTkcgV0cgY292ZXJpbmcgQmluZGluZyBUTFYgdXNl IGNhc2VzIHRoYXQgY2FuIHJlZmVyZW5jZWQgZnJvbSBib3RoIElTSVMgYW5kIE9TUEYgcHJvdG9j b2wgZXh0ZW5zaW9ucyBkb2N1bWVudHMsIGluIG9yZGVyIHRvIGFsbG93IHRoZSBwcm90b2NvbCBl eHRlbnNpb25zIGRvY3VtZW50cyB0byBmb2N1cyBvbiBiaXRzIGFuZCBieXRlcy4NCg0KVGhpcyBk b2N1bWVudCBpcyBhbiBhdHRlbXB0IHRvIGFkZHJlc3MgdGhhdCBuZWVkLiAgQ29tbWVudHMgYXJl IHdlbGNvbWUuDQoNCkNocmlzDQoNCi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQpGcm9tOiBp bnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzppbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmdd IA0KU2VudDogVGh1cnNkYXksIFNlcHRlbWJlciAyNSwgMjAxNCAxOjA5IFBNDQpUbzogVW1hIENo dW5kdXJpOyBIYW5uZXMgR3JlZGxlcjsgQ2hyaXMgQm93ZXJzOyBDaHJpcyBCb3dlcnM7IFVtYSBD aHVuZHVyaTsgSGFubmVzIEdyZWRsZXINClN1YmplY3Q6IE5ldyBWZXJzaW9uIE5vdGlmaWNhdGlv biBmb3IgZHJhZnQtYm93ZXJzLXNwcmluZy1hZHZlcnRpc2luZy1sc3BzLXdpdGgtc3ItMDAudHh0 DQoNCg0KQSBuZXcgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiBJLUQsIGRyYWZ0LWJvd2Vycy1zcHJpbmctYWR2ZXJ0aXNp bmctbHNwcy13aXRoLXNyLTAwLnR4dA0KaGFzIGJlZW4gc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bGx5IHN1Ym1pdHRlZCBi eSBDaHJpcyBCb3dlcnMgYW5kIHBvc3RlZCB0byB0aGUgSUVURiByZXBvc2l0b3J5Lg0KDQpOYW1l OgkJZHJhZnQtYm93ZXJzLXNwcmluZy1hZHZlcnRpc2luZy1sc3BzLXdpdGgtc3INClJldmlzaW9u OgkwMA0KVGl0bGU6CQlBZHZlcnRpc2luZyBMU1BzIHdpdGggU2VnbWVudCBSb3V0aW5nDQpEb2N1 bWVudCBkYXRlOgkyMDE0LTA5LTI1DQpHcm91cDoJCUluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3VibWlzc2lvbg0KUGFn ZXM6CQkxNA0KVVJMOiAgICAgICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJh ZnRzL2RyYWZ0LWJvd2Vycy1zcHJpbmctYWR2ZXJ0aXNpbmctbHNwcy13aXRoLXNyLTAwLnR4dA0K U3RhdHVzOiAgICAgICAgIGh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LWJv d2Vycy1zcHJpbmctYWR2ZXJ0aXNpbmctbHNwcy13aXRoLXNyLw0KSHRtbGl6ZWQ6ICAgICAgIGh0 dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LWJvd2Vycy1zcHJpbmctYWR2ZXJ0aXNpbmct bHNwcy13aXRoLXNyLTAwDQoNCg0KQWJzdHJhY3Q6DQogICBTZWdtZW50IHJvdXRpbmcgdXNlcyBn bG9iYWxseS1rbm93biBsYWJlbHMgdG8gYWNjb21wbGlzaCBmb3J3YXJkaW5nDQogICBhbG9uZyBz aG9ydGVzdCBwYXRocywgYW5kIGxhYmVsIHN0YWNrcyB0byBhY2NvbXBsaXNoIGV4cGxpY2l0IHJv dXRpbmcNCiAgIGFsb25nIGFyYml0cmFyeSBwYXRocy4gIFRoZXNlIGxhYmVscyBhcmUgYWR2ZXJ0 aXNlZCB1c2luZyBhbiBJR1AuDQogICBUaGlzIGRyYWZ0IGRlc2NyaWJlcyBob3cgbGFiZWwgYmlu ZGluZ3MgY29ycmVzcG9uZGluZyB0byBSU1ZQLCBMRFAsDQogICBCR1AgbGFiZWxlZC11bmljYXN0 LCBhbmQgc3RhdGljIExTUHMgYXJlIGFkdmVydGlzZWQgaW4gc2VnbWVudA0KICAgcm91dGluZyBh bmQgaG93IHRoZXNlIGxhYmVscyBjYW4gYmUgY29tYmluZWQgd2l0aCBvdGhlciBzZWdtZW50DQog ICByb3V0aW5nIGxhYmVscyB0byBjcmVhdGUgZm9yd2FyZGluZyBwYXRocy4gIFRoaXMgZHJhZnQg YWxzbyBkZXNjcmliZXMNCiAgIGhvdyBjb250ZXh0IGxhYmVscyBmb3IgZWdyZXNzIG5vZGUgcHJv dGVjdGlvbiBhcmUgYWR2ZXJ0aXNlZCBpbiB1c2luZw0KICAgc2VnbWVudCByb3V0aW5nIElHUCBl eHRlbnNpb25zLg0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgDQoNCg0KUGxlYXNlIG5vdGUg dGhhdCBpdCBtYXkgdGFrZSBhIGNvdXBsZSBvZiBtaW51dGVzIGZyb20gdGhlIHRpbWUgb2Ygc3Vi bWlzc2lvbiB1bnRpbCB0aGUgaHRtbGl6ZWQgdmVyc2lvbiBhbmQgZGlmZiBhcmUgYXZhaWxhYmxl IGF0IHRvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnLg0KDQpUaGUgSUVURiBTZWNyZXRhcmlhdA0KDQo= From nobody Sat Sep 27 23:18:02 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C89B61A0350 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 23:18:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.986 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.986 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 XirdF1LUJIzq for ; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 23:17:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 636D91A0343 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 23:17:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BJZ66499; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 06:17:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from SZXEML423-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.162) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 07:15:28 +0100 Received: from szxeml561-mbx.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.20]) by szxeml423-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.162]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 14:15:22 +0800 From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem To: "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs Thread-Index: Ac/a45DNYW4XAUV2Q+ODyZykDMi9pA== Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 06:15:21 +0000 Message-ID: <73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F788459474EB@szxeml561-mbx.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.18.150.250] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F788459474EBszxeml561mbxchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/om7VMjTSiMiUW7ow4_9JOOKWark Subject: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 06:18:01 -0000 --_000_73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F788459474EBszxeml561mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I have a small query related to SID distributed by IGPs in the SR. Can anyb= ody help me to clarify this. The SID/Label distributed by IGPs (OSPF or ISIS) for the prefixes/Nodes s= hould represent Shortest Path to the given prefix or node? We can use same Labels for other representation like Best Effort Path also = ? (The label distribution done by OSPF, but the next-hop for the node is c= alculated by other IGPs based on administrative decision) Regards, Veerendranath --_000_73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F788459474EBszxeml561mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

I have a small query related to SID distributed by I= GPs in the SR. Can anybody help me to clarify this.

The SID/Label distributed by IGPs (OSPF or ISIS) for= the prefixes/Nodes   should represent Shortest Path to the given= prefix or  node?

We can use same Labels for other representation like= Best Effort Path also ? (The label distribution done by OSPF, but the next= -hop  for the node is calculated by other IGPs based on administrative= decision)

 

Regards,

Veerendranath

--_000_73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F788459474EBszxeml561mbxchi_-- From nobody Sat Sep 27 23:29:03 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18EDB1A0369 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 23:29:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.685 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.685 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham 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 e0r__TUQ2lIK for ; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 23:28:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpgre-esg-01.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DDC51A0361 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 23:28:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.122]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id B949BA4BB7113; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 06:28:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712wxchhub03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.74]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s8S6Su4d022283 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sun, 28 Sep 2014 08:28:56 +0200 Received: from FR711WXCHMBA07.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.52]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 08:28:56 +0200 From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" To: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs Thread-Index: AQHP2uV7L35ATUUXbEWwodgCDVulZQ== Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 06:28:56 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.4.140807 x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.39] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D04D76FAF80A6wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/QU4kruuE-SuiRd6gAgNO_G1rto0 Subject: Re: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 06:29:01 -0000 --_000_D04D76FAF80A6wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In the OSPF/ISIS drafts on SR we scoped an algorithm field which could be u= sed for this purpose. So besides shortest path you could use a different al= gorithm. From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem > Date: Sunday 28 September 2014 08:15 To: "spring@ietf.org" > Subject: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs Hi, I have a small query related to SID distributed by IGPs in the SR. Can anyb= ody help me to clarify this. The SID/Label distributed by IGPs (OSPF or ISIS) for the prefixes/Nodes s= hould represent Shortest Path to the given prefix or node? We can use same Labels for other representation like Best Effort Path also = ? (The label distribution done by OSPF, but the next-hop for the node is c= alculated by other IGPs based on administrative decision) Regards, Veerendranath --_000_D04D76FAF80A6wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In the OSPF/ISIS drafts on SR we scoped an algorithm field which could= be used for this purpose. So besides shortest path you could use a differe= nt algorithm.

From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem &= lt;veerendranatharv@huawei.c= om>
Date: Sunday 28 September 2014 08:1= 5
To: "spring@ietf.org" <= spring@ietf.org>
Subject: [spring] Regarding SID/Lab= le distributed by IGPs

Hi,

I have a small query related to SID distributed by I= GPs in the SR. Can anybody help me to clarify this.

The SID/Label distributed by IGPs (OSPF or ISIS) for= the prefixes/Nodes   should represent Shortest Path to the given= prefix or  node?

We can use same Labels for other representation like= Best Effort Path also ? (The label distribution done by OSPF, but the next= -hop  for the node is calculated by other IGPs based on administrative= decision)

 

Regards,

Veerendranath

 --_000_D04D76FAF80A6wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_-- From nobody Sat Sep 27 23:48:07 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E6BD1A037C for ; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 23:48:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.986 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.986 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 eR28AR-djErS for ; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 23:48:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8E7E1A0376 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 23:48:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BJZ68206; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 06:48:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from SZXEML423-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.162) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 07:48:01 +0100 Received: from szxeml561-mbx.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.20]) by szxeml423-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.162]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 14:47:58 +0800 From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem To: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs Thread-Index: AQHP2uV7L35ATUUXbEWwodgCDVulZZwWFXfQ Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 06:47:57 +0000 Message-ID: <73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F788459475C4@szxeml561-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.18.150.250] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F788459475C4szxeml561mbxchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/ARIJ6P45WgyE8RliFsTOSD0-5Rc Subject: Re: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 06:48:06 -0000 --_000_73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F788459475C4szxeml561mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Henderick, Thanks for your reply. Yes, I found algorithm filed in TLVs. While constructing LSP , whether we n= eed to provide the algorithm mapping information along with label/SID ? I think for construction of label stack ,it required to know what label re= presents (whether it is shortest path or best path to the given node/prefix= ), so we should have algorithm mapping information also along with label in SI= DB. Please let me know if my understanding is wrong . Whether we can use multiple algorithms to represent same Node SID ? Regards, Veerendranath From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: 28 September 2014 14:29 To: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs In the OSPF/ISIS drafts on SR we scoped an algorithm field which could be u= sed for this purpose. So besides shortest path you could use a different al= gorithm. From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem > Date: Sunday 28 September 2014 08:15 To: "spring@ietf.org" > Subject: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs Hi, I have a small query related to SID distributed by IGPs in the SR. Can anyb= ody help me to clarify this. The SID/Label distributed by IGPs (OSPF or ISIS) for the prefixes/Nodes s= hould represent Shortest Path to the given prefix or node? We can use same Labels for other representation like Best Effort Path also = ? (The label distribution done by OSPF, but the next-hop for the node is c= alculated by other IGPs based on administrative decision) Regards, Veerendranath --_000_73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F788459475C4szxeml561mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Henderick,

Thanks for your reply.=

Yes, I found algorithm= filed in TLVs. While constructing LSP , whether we need to provide the alg= orithm  mapping information along with label/SID ?

I think for constructi= on of label stack ,it required to know  what label represents (whether= it is shortest path or best path to the given node/prefix),

so we should have algo= rithm mapping information also along with label in SIDB.

Please let me know if = my understanding is wrong .

 

Whether we can use mul= tiple algorithms to represent same Node SID ?

 

Regards,

Veerendranath

 

From: Henderic= kx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: 28 September 2014 14:29
To: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs

 

In the = OSPF/ISIS drafts on SR we scoped an algorithm field which could be used for= this purpose. So besides shortest path you could use a different algorithm= .

&n= bsp;

From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem <veerendranatharv@huawei.com>
Date: Sunday 28 September 2014 08:15
To: "spring@ietf.org&quo= t; <spring@ietf.org>
Subject: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs=

&n= bsp;

Hi,

I have a small query rel= ated to SID distributed by IGPs in the SR. Can anybody help me to clarify t= his.

The SID/Label distribute= d by IGPs (OSPF or ISIS) for the prefixes/Nodes   should represen= t Shortest Path to the given prefix or  node?

We can use same Labels f= or other representation like Best Effort Path also ? (The label distributio= n done by OSPF, but the next-hop  for the node is calculated by other = IGPs based on administrative decision)

 =

Regards,

Veerendranath=

--_000_73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F788459475C4szxeml561mbxchi_-- From nobody Sat Sep 27 23:53:02 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07AA41A037E for ; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 23:53:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.685 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.685 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham 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 TLZuoa48ALja for ; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 23:52:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpgre-esg-01.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 232601A0376 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 2014 23:52:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.122]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 7D26E9B74E0BD; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 06:52:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.111]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s8S6qtVA032106 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sun, 28 Sep 2014 08:52:55 +0200 Received: from FR711WXCHMBA07.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.52]) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.111]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 08:52:55 +0200 From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" To: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs Thread-Index: AQHP2uV7L35ATUUXbEWwodgCDVulZZwWFXfQgAAGUYA= Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 06:52:54 +0000 Message-ID: References: <73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F788459475C4@szxeml561-mbx.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F788459475C4@szxeml561-mbx.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.4.140807 x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.39] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D04D7CB2F80D9wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/5eVBX2b_RYZt9-tNIt3s647knrk Subject: Re: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 06:53:00 -0000 --_000_D04D7CB2F80D9wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At this stage we defined the solution such that a given SID/Label is associ= ated with 1 algorithm. From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem > Date: Sunday 28 September 2014 08:47 To: Wim Henderickx >, "spring@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs Hi Henderick, Thanks for your reply. Yes, I found algorithm filed in TLVs. While constructing LSP , whether we n= eed to provide the algorithm mapping information along with label/SID ? I think for construction of label stack ,it required to know what label re= presents (whether it is shortest path or best path to the given node/prefix= ), so we should have algorithm mapping information also along with label in SI= DB. Please let me know if my understanding is wrong . Whether we can use multiple algorithms to represent same Node SID ? Regards, Veerendranath From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: 28 September 2014 14:29 To: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs In the OSPF/ISIS drafts on SR we scoped an algorithm field which could be u= sed for this purpose. So besides shortest path you could use a different al= gorithm. From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem > Date: Sunday 28 September 2014 08:15 To: "spring@ietf.org" > Subject: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs Hi, I have a small query related to SID distributed by IGPs in the SR. Can anyb= ody help me to clarify this. The SID/Label distributed by IGPs (OSPF or ISIS) for the prefixes/Nodes s= hould represent Shortest Path to the given prefix or node? We can use same Labels for other representation like Best Effort Path also = ? (The label distribution done by OSPF, but the next-hop for the node is c= alculated by other IGPs based on administrative decision) Regards, Veerendranath --_000_D04D7CB2F80D9wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3A8EDB90EFD2F848A533AC82BCC3AA71@exchange.lucent.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At this stage we defined the solution such that a given SID/Label is a= ssociated with 1 algorithm.

From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem &= lt;veerendranatharv@huawei.c= om>
Date: Sunday 28 September 2014 08:4= 7
To: Wim Henderickx <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com<= /a>>, "spring@ietf.org"= <spring@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] Regarding SID= /Lable distributed by IGPs

Hi Henderick,

Thanks for your reply.=

Yes, I found algorithm= filed in TLVs. While constructing LSP , whether we need to provide the alg= orithm  mapping information along with label/SID ?

I think for constructi= on of label stack ,it required to know  what label represents (whether= it is shortest path or best path to the given node/prefix),

so we should have algo= rithm mapping information also along with label in SIDB.

Please let me know if = my understanding is wrong .

 

Whether we can use mul= tiple algorithms to represent same Node SID ?

 

Regards,

Veerendranath

 

From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: 28 September 2014 14:29
To: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem; = spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs

 

In the = OSPF/ISIS drafts on SR we scoped an algorithm field which could be used for= this purpose. So besides shortest path you could use a different algorithm= .

&n= bsp;

From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem <veerendranatharv@huawei.com>
Date: Sunday 28 September 2014 08:15
To: "spring@ietf.org&quo= t; <spring@ietf.org>
Subject: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs=

&n= bsp;

Hi,

I have a small query rel= ated to SID distributed by IGPs in the SR. Can anybody help me to clarify t= his.

The SID/Label distribute= d by IGPs (OSPF or ISIS) for the prefixes/Nodes   should represen= t Shortest Path to the given prefix or  node?

We can use same Labels f= or other representation like Best Effort Path also ? (The label distributio= n done by OSPF, but the next-hop  for the node is calculated by other = IGPs based on administrative decision)

 =

Regards,

Veerendranath=

--_000_D04D7CB2F80D9wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_-- From nobody Sun Sep 28 00:02:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 691791A0384 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 00:02:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.986 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.986 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 DpRJTwrZdgZK for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 00:02:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7081D1A0382 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 00:02:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BJZ68990; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 07:02:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from SZXEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.91) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 08:02:11 +0100 Received: from szxeml561-mbx.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.20]) by szxeml412-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.91]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 15:02:03 +0800 From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem To: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs Thread-Index: AQHP2uV7L35ATUUXbEWwodgCDVulZZwWFXfQgAAGUYCAAACbUA== Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 07:02:03 +0000 Message-ID: <73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F78845947636@szxeml561-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F788459475C4@szxeml561-mbx.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.18.150.250] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F78845947636szxeml561mbxchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/VymD8QSnR5GOkoZF9aJnsgFNAD8 Subject: Re: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 07:02:16 -0000 --_000_73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F78845947636szxeml561mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Henderick, Thanks for your reply. If I use OSPF/ ISIS SID in my label/SID stack for data forwarding, by defau= lt the label represents shortest path for the given prefix/node? If I use different algorithm for the same label/SID, I must notify which al= gorithm I used to for this label/SID while constructing label stack for spe= cific path? Regards, Veerendranath From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: 28 September 2014 14:53 To: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs At this stage we defined the solution such that a given SID/Label is associ= ated with 1 algorithm. From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem > Date: Sunday 28 September 2014 08:47 To: Wim Henderickx >, "spring@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs Hi Henderick, Thanks for your reply. Yes, I found algorithm filed in TLVs. While constructing LSP , whether we n= eed to provide the algorithm mapping information along with label/SID ? I think for construction of label stack ,it required to know what label re= presents (whether it is shortest path or best path to the given node/prefix= ), so we should have algorithm mapping information also along with label in SI= DB. Please let me know if my understanding is wrong . Whether we can use multiple algorithms to represent same Node SID ? Regards, Veerendranath From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: 28 September 2014 14:29 To: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs In the OSPF/ISIS drafts on SR we scoped an algorithm field which could be u= sed for this purpose. So besides shortest path you could use a different al= gorithm. From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem > Date: Sunday 28 September 2014 08:15 To: "spring@ietf.org" > Subject: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs Hi, I have a small query related to SID distributed by IGPs in the SR. Can anyb= ody help me to clarify this. The SID/Label distributed by IGPs (OSPF or ISIS) for the prefixes/Nodes s= hould represent Shortest Path to the given prefix or node? We can use same Labels for other representation like Best Effort Path also = ? (The label distribution done by OSPF, but the next-hop for the node is c= alculated by other IGPs based on administrative decision) Regards, Veerendranath --_000_73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F78845947636szxeml561mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Henderick,

Thanks for your reply.=

If I use OSPF/ ISIS SI= D in my label/SID stack for data forwarding, by default the label represent= s shortest path for the given prefix/node?

If I use different alg= orithm for the same label/SID, I must notify which algorithm I used to for = this label/SID while constructing label stack for specific path?=

 

Regards,

Veerendranath

 

 

From: Henderic= kx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: 28 September 2014 14:53
To: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem; spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs

 

At this= stage we defined the solution such that a given SID/Label is associated wi= th 1 algorithm.

&n= bsp;

From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem <veerendranatharv@huawei.com>
Date: Sunday 28 September 2014 08:47
To: Wim Henderickx <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs

&n= bsp;

Hi Henderick,

Thanks for your reply.=

Yes, I found algorithm= filed in TLVs. While constructing LSP , whether we need to provide the alg= orithm  mapping information along with label/SID ?

I think for constructi= on of label stack ,it required to know  what label represents (whether= it is shortest path or best path to the given node/prefix),

so we should have algo= rithm mapping information also along with label in SIDB.

Please let me know if = my understanding is wrong .

 

Whether we can use mul= tiple algorithms to represent same Node SID ?

 

Regards,

Veerendranath

 

From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: 28 September 2014 14:29
To: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem; = spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs=

 =

In the = OSPF/ISIS drafts on SR we scoped an algorithm field which could be used for= this purpose. So besides shortest path you could use a different algorithm= .

 <= /span>

From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem <veerendranatharv@huawei.com>
Date: Sunday 28 September 2014 08:15
To: "spring@ietf.org&quo= t; <spring@ietf.org>
Subject: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs=

 <= /span>

Hi,

I have a small query rel= ated to SID distributed by IGPs in the SR. Can anybody help me to clarify t= his.

The SID/Label distribute= d by IGPs (OSPF or ISIS) for the prefixes/Nodes   should represen= t Shortest Path to the given prefix or  node?

We can use same Labels f= or other representation like Best Effort Path also ? (The label distributio= n done by OSPF, but the next-hop  for the node is calculated by other = IGPs based on administrative decision)

 =

Regards,

Veerendranath=

--_000_73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F78845947636szxeml561mbxchi_-- From nobody Sun Sep 28 00:09:08 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5FA71A0384 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 00:09:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.685 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.685 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham 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 G0oDT1ktjTGv for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 00:09:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B95FE1A0381 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 00:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.42]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 0F607D28AFEEF; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 07:08:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712wxchhub03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.74]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s8S78xhD014736 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:08:59 +0200 Received: from FR711WXCHMBA07.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.52]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:08:58 +0200 From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" To: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem , "spring@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs Thread-Index: AQHP2uV7L35ATUUXbEWwodgCDVulZZwWFXfQgAAGUYCAAACbUIAAA/IA Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 07:08:58 +0000 Message-ID: References: <73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F788459475C4@szxeml561-mbx.china.huawei.com> <73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F78845947636@szxeml561-mbx.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <73BFDDFFF499304EB26FE5FDEF20F78845947636@szxeml561-mbx.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.4.140807 x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.41] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D04D8027F80E4wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/qz_aqjEUYFSV_gBUR1CjxcyEbyU Subject: Re: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 07:09:04 -0000 --_000_D04D8027F80E4wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes you should advertise the Node-SID with the algorithm you want to use fo= r this prefix On top you should advertise the algorithm in the capability TLV for ISIS/OS= PF From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem > Date: Sunday 28 September 2014 09:02 To: Wim Henderickx >, "spring@ietf.org" > Subject: RE: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs Hi Henderick, Thanks for your reply. If I use OSPF/ ISIS SID in my label/SID stack for data forwarding, by defau= lt the label represents shortest path for the given prefix/node? If I use different algorithm for the same label/SID, I must notify which al= gorithm I used to for this label/SID while constructing label stack for spe= cific path? Regards, Veerendranath From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: 28 September 2014 14:53 To: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs At this stage we defined the solution such that a given SID/Label is associ= ated with 1 algorithm. From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem > Date: Sunday 28 September 2014 08:47 To: Wim Henderickx >, "spring@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs Hi Henderick, Thanks for your reply. Yes, I found algorithm filed in TLVs. While constructing LSP , whether we n= eed to provide the algorithm mapping information along with label/SID ? I think for construction of label stack ,it required to know what label re= presents (whether it is shortest path or best path to the given node/prefix= ), so we should have algorithm mapping information also along with label in SI= DB. Please let me know if my understanding is wrong . Whether we can use multiple algorithms to represent same Node SID ? Regards, Veerendranath From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: 28 September 2014 14:29 To: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs In the OSPF/ISIS drafts on SR we scoped an algorithm field which could be u= sed for this purpose. So besides shortest path you could use a different al= gorithm. From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem > Date: Sunday 28 September 2014 08:15 To: "spring@ietf.org" > Subject: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs Hi, I have a small query related to SID distributed by IGPs in the SR. Can anyb= ody help me to clarify this. The SID/Label distributed by IGPs (OSPF or ISIS) for the prefixes/Nodes s= hould represent Shortest Path to the given prefix or node? We can use same Labels for other representation like Best Effort Path also = ? (The label distribution done by OSPF, but the next-hop for the node is c= alculated by other IGPs based on administrative decision) Regards, Veerendranath --_000_D04D8027F80E4wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <9DED194023F5D74B8D2584591123C875@exchange.lucent.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes you should advertise the Node-SID with the algorithm you want to u= se for this prefix
On top you should advertise the algorithm in the capability TLV for IS= IS/OSPF

From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem &= lt;veerendranatharv@huawei.c= om>
Date: Sunday 28 September 2014 09:0= 2
To: Wim Henderickx <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com<= /a>>, "spring@ietf.org"= <spring@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [spring] Regarding SID= /Lable distributed by IGPs

Hi Henderick,

Thanks for your reply.=

If I use OSPF/ ISIS SI= D in my label/SID stack for data forwarding, by default the label represent= s shortest path for the given prefix/node?

If I use different alg= orithm for the same label/SID, I must notify which algorithm I used to for = this label/SID while constructing label stack for specific path?=

 

Regards,

Veerendranath

 

 

From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: 28 September 2014 14:53
To: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem; = spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs

 

At this= stage we defined the solution such that a given SID/Label is associated wi= th 1 algorithm.

&n= bsp;

From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem <veerendranatharv@huawei.com>
Date: Sunday 28 September 2014 08:47
To: Wim Henderickx <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs

&n= bsp;

Hi Henderick,

Thanks for your reply.=

Yes, I found algorithm= filed in TLVs. While constructing LSP , whether we need to provide the alg= orithm  mapping information along with label/SID ?

I think for constructi= on of label stack ,it required to know  what label represents (whether= it is shortest path or best path to the given node/prefix),

so we should have algo= rithm mapping information also along with label in SIDB.

Please let me know if = my understanding is wrong .

 

Whether we can use mul= tiple algorithms to represent same Node SID ?

 

Regards,

Veerendranath

 

From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) = [mailto:wim.henderickx= @alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: 28 September 2014 14:29
To: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem; = spring@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs=

 =

In the = OSPF/ISIS drafts on SR we scoped an algorithm field which could be used for= this purpose. So besides shortest path you could use a different algorithm= .

 <= /span>

From: Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem <veerendranatharv@huawei.com>
Date: Sunday 28 September 2014 08:15
To: "spring@ietf.org&quo= t; <spring@ietf.org>
Subject: [spring] Regarding SID/Lable distributed by IGPs=

 <= /span>

Hi,

I have a small query rel= ated to SID distributed by IGPs in the SR. Can anybody help me to clarify t= his.

The SID/Label distribute= d by IGPs (OSPF or ISIS) for the prefixes/Nodes   should represen= t Shortest Path to the given prefix or  node?

We can use same Labels f= or other representation like Best Effort Path also ? (The label distributio= n done by OSPF, but the next-hop  for the node is calculated by other = IGPs based on administrative decision)

 =

Regards,

Veerendranath=

--_000_D04D8027F80E4wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_-- From nobody Sun Sep 28 09:04:32 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AF1E1A1B54 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:04:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.915 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.915 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, BAYES_999=0.2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 J1VlmpJSHS8A for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:04:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omr-m08.mx.aol.com (omr-m08.mx.aol.com [64.12.222.129]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11F901A1B51 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:04:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtaomg-mbc02.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mbc02.mx.aol.com [172.26.221.144]) by omr-m08.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 6DED07000009B for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:04:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from core-dla001b.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-dla001.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.180.129]) by mtaomg-mbc02.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id EF26038000084 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:04:26 -0400 (EDT) From: texaswritworks@aol.com Full-name: texaswritworks Message-ID: <7a346.5bff405.41598b8a@aol.com> Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:04:26 -0400 To: spring@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_7a346.5bff405.41598b8a_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.7 sub 3039 X-Originating-IP: [73.183.206.102] x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20140625; t=1411920267; bh=AAinz8ejV+Lv73a+NZC27u120etX6B+LBPZWZqUyZ/E=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=rEKSauRsLsyGxQ4Rf0m7p3wUc/DCfvjOVud7WwTVmJWif5T41riMF880mjBHyommw 0XWBsNbD78V/t7gBpcVnh54GuH9xAfdHSod8wvRD8k/BSsCVmdlggmHTyD60Y1YB27 xKy8AapX8ZMLKu9tZRdwQ0X06myPo24V7qh+dcEw= x-aol-sid: 3039ac1add905428318a426e Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/cohaFhhYlcSmbV9O2A4giL3Ja2E Subject: [spring] (no subject) X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 16:04:31 -0000 --part1_7a346.5bff405.41598b8a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please remove my name from the mailing list and/or send instructions to me on how to do so. Thank you! David C. Bolton Certified Paralegal 6804-E Hwy 6 South #525 Houston, Texas 77083 (832) 794-3787 Fax: (281) 277-8734 texaswritworks@aol.com DISCLAIMER: Texas Writ Works (TWW) is a pro se legal research and document preparation service who primarily assists persons who are incarcerated in accessing the courts. We do not hire licensed attorneys only certified paralegals. We do not engage in the unauthorized practice of law, provide legal advice or represent anyone in any court. We will refer you to a licensed attorney upon written request. --part1_7a346.5bff405.41598b8a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable AOL Email
 
Please remove my name from the mailing list and/or send instruc= tions=20 to me on how to do so.
 
Thank you!
 
 
David C. Bolton
Certified=20 Paralegal
6804-E Hwy 6 South #525
Houston, Texas 77083
(832= )=20 794-3787
Fax: (281)=20 277-8734
texaswritworks@aol.com

DISCLAIMER: Texas Writ Wor= ks=20 (TWW) is a pro se legal research and document preparation service wh= o=20 primarily assists persons who are incarcerated in accessing the cour= ts. We=20 do not hire licensed attorneys only certified paralegals. We do not= engage=20 in the unauthorized practice of law, provide legal advice or represe= nt=20 anyone in any court. We will refer you to a licensed attorney upon= written=20 request.
--part1_7a346.5bff405.41598b8a_boundary-- From nobody Sun Sep 28 12:45:57 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E707F1A1BC9 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:45:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.915 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.915 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, BAYES_999=0.2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 Unzgm2-5p5AL for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:45:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omr-m3.mx.aol.com (omr-m3.mx.aol.com [64.12.233.221]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A82571A1BC8 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:45:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtaomg-aam02.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-aam02.mx.aol.com [172.27.19.148]) by omr-m3.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id CFF8938000060 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 15:45:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from core-dla001b.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-dla001.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.180.129]) by mtaomg-aam02.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 6F2EB38000085 for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 15:45:51 -0400 (EDT) From: texaswritworks@aol.com Full-name: texaswritworks Message-ID: <35a01.6343ee92.4159bf6f@aol.com> Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 15:45:51 -0400 To: spring@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_35a01.6343ee92.4159bf6f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.7 sub 3039 X-Originating-IP: [73.183.206.102] x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20140625; t=1411933551; bh=4TF556Kxt+WNN5t2Iwp3l245iGsQG3o+1n3FdjDimqI=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=qdKNZaWX561TK8oSUqLVn9JVMDxxR8wd9ex2HJZ9H2VkRc5WDHb6HPkahMw1QdeCx uR6edTA11DPwwOhzdzCDqtkOQLbbcUJKe/i68xL+CHYj8kq8F9L24dEYbkOGb7m0EB 9iC+ekpHucgJd7wknJArWuu7vfH/j9ufvQgLt310= x-aol-sid: 3039ac1b13945428656f5765 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/SJVK0MDsoqbqM342j6ndZeu5Uvk Subject: [spring] Request for Removal from Mailing List and membership as a novice from IETF X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 19:45:54 -0000 --part1_35a01.6343ee92.4159bf6f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To whom it may concern: I wish to be removed from IETF's mailing list and also from membership as a novice. Please provide me with instructions on how to effect these changes in my current status as a novice member, as well as being removed from the mailing list to receive any future emails from IETF. Sincerely, David C. Bolton Certified Paralegal 6804-E Hwy 6 South #525 Houston, Texas 77083 (832) 794-3787 Fax: (281) 277-8734 texaswritworks@aol.com DISCLAIMER: Texas Writ Works (TWW) is a pro se legal research and document preparation service who primarily assists persons who are incarcerated in accessing the courts. We do not hire licensed attorneys only certified paralegals. We do not engage in the unauthorized practice of law, provide legal advice or represent anyone in any court. We will refer you to a licensed attorney upon written request. --part1_35a01.6343ee92.4159bf6f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable AOL Email
To whom it may concern:
 
I wish to be removed from IETF's mailing list and also from=20 membership as a novice. Please provide me with instructions on how= to=20 effect these changes in my current status as a novice member, as wel= l as=20 being removed from the mailing list to receive any future email= s from=20 IETF.
 
Sincerely,
 
David C. Bolton
Certified=20 Paralegal
6804-E Hwy 6 South #525
Houston, Texas 77083
(832= )=20 794-3787
Fax: (281)=20 277-8734
texaswritworks@aol.com

DISCLAIMER: Texas Writ Wor= ks=20 (TWW) is a pro se legal research and document preparation service wh= o=20 primarily assists persons who are incarcerated in accessing the cour= ts. We=20 do not hire licensed attorneys only certified paralegals. We do not= engage=20 in the unauthorized practice of law, provide legal advice or represe= nt=20 anyone in any court. We will refer you to a licensed attorney upon= written=20 request.
--part1_35a01.6343ee92.4159bf6f_boundary-- From nobody Mon Sep 29 03:56:02 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51B6B1A0386; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 03:56:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.686 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham 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 X-BdBRWiRWIu; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 03:55:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0A2A1A020A; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 03:55:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.100] (81-236-221-144-no93.tbcn.telia.com [81.236.221.144]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 29A171801256; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 12:55:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <54293ABE.5000407@pi.nu> Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 12:55:58 +0200 From: Loa Andersson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/7jkcTMi3qFFPlojlcXCkmSp3YEg Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "spring@ietf.org" , "mpls@ietf.org" , draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org, "" , "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [spring] Routing Directorate QA review of draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 10:56:00 -0000 Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate QA reviewer for draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls-03.txt. The Routing Directorate QA reviews are intended to be a support to improve the quality of RTG Area documents as the pass through the IETF process. This is the QA review at the time of wg document adoption poll. Document: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls-03.txt Reviewer: Loa Andersson Review Date: 2014-09-28 Working Group Adoption Poll end date: Oct 8, 2014 Intended Status: Standards Track Please find the review at: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/QA%20review%20Sep%202014 /Loa -- Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 From nobody Mon Sep 29 05:29:05 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A51661A3BA4; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 05:29:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 0JICebDxwZpT; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 05:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-db3on0762.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe04::762]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12DB01A3B9E; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 05:29:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.242.110.144) by AM3PR03MB609.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.242.109.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1034.13; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 12:28:38 +0000 Received: from AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.242.110.144]) by AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.242.110.144]) with mapi id 15.00.1034.003; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 12:28:38 +0000 From: Alexander Vainshtein To: Loa Andersson Thread-Topic: [spring] Routing Directorate QA review of draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thread-Index: AQHP29P4IT/IjiSa90674LLz0cqIbpwYBOUw Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 12:28:38 +0000 Message-ID: References: <54293ABE.5000407@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: <54293ABE.5000407@pi.nu> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [147.234.56.21] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:AM3PR03MB609; x-forefront-prvs: 034902F5BC x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(13464003)(377454003)(199003)(377424004)(252514010)(189002)(51444003)(51704005)(97736003)(77982003)(120916001)(21056001)(106356001)(74502003)(81542003)(2656002)(101416001)(107046002)(74316001)(20776003)(74662003)(76576001)(81342003)(10300001)(108616004)(80022003)(87936001)(46102003)(83072002)(15975445006)(19580405001)(31966008)(85306004)(76176999)(95666004)(90102001)(86362001)(105586002)(54356999)(33646002)(64706001)(15202345003)(92566001)(230783001)(79102003)(83322001)(66066001)(50986999)(4396001)(76482002)(106116001)(85852003)(99396003)(19580395003)(110136001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM3PR03MB609; H:AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: ecitele.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/jDNCreCEXLvEiMFaV9I9upHUls0 Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "spring@ietf.org" , "mpls@ietf.org" , "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" , "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" , "" , "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] Routing Directorate QA review of draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 12:29:04 -0000 Loa, and all, I have read the draft and your review on the Wiki page, and I think that yo= ur question about domain-wide labels is worth detailed discussion. In Section 2 "Illustration", the draft says that: - PE2 advertises (in the IGP) a host address 192.0.2.2/32 with its attache= d node segment 102 - PE1 installs the VPN prefix Z in the appropriate VRF and resolves the ne= xt-hop onto the node segment 102. =20 Upon receiving a packet from A destined to Z, PE1 pushes two labels on= to the packet: the top label is 102, the bottom label is LZ.=20 102 identifies the node segment to PE2 and hence transports the packet a= long the ECMP-aware shortest- path to PE2. To me this strongly suggests that label 102 is understood by P1, P2, P3 and= P4 as a domain-wide label for an LSP that terminates in PE2. This looks di= fferent from the downstream label allocation process as defined in RFC 3031= and RFC 5331.=20 RFC 5331 clearly states in Section 4 "Upstream Label Assignment" that If the binding between L and F was made by a third party, say R3, and t= hen advertised to both Ru and Rd, we also refer to the label binding as=20 "upstream-assigned". In our case it seems that assignment of label 102 and its binding to FEC th= at is represented by Segment 102 is performed by PE2, so P1, P2, P3 and P4 = should all treat this label as upstream-assigned. But this is never mention= ed in the draft. I concur with you that this requires discussion in the MPLS WG, and I am no= t sure such a discussion should be postponed until the SPRING WG LC. I must admit that I did not read other SPRING documents (including one on i= nteroperability with existing label distribution protocols), and hence I ca= n be wrong in my conclusions. But the MPLS WG looks to me like exactly the = place where this should be clarified. My 2c, Sasha=20 Email: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com Mobile: 054-9266302 > -----Original Message----- > From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 1:56 PM > To: rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org > Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; draft-filsfils-spri= ng- > segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org; ; mpls= - > chairs@tools.ietf.org > Subject: [spring] Routing Directorate QA review of draft-filsfils-spring- > segment-routing-mpls >=20 > Hello, >=20 > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate QA reviewer for draft-fil= sfils- > spring-segment-routing-mpls-03.txt. >=20 > The Routing Directorate QA reviews are intended to be a support to improv= e > the quality of RTG Area documents as the pass through the IETF process. >=20 > This is the QA review at the time of wg document adoption poll. >=20 > Document: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls-03.txt > Reviewer: Loa Andersson > Review Date: 2014-09-28 > Working Group Adoption Poll end date: Oct 8, 2014 Intended Status: > Standards Track >=20 > Please find the review at: >=20 > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/QA%20review%20Sep%202014 >=20 > /Loa >=20 > -- >=20 >=20 > Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com > Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu > Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring From nobody Mon Sep 29 05:56:02 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EBA81A872A; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 05:55:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.287 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.287 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 M_4T88bFoXRu; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 05:55:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 818671A8727; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 05:55:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4691; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1411995357; x=1413204957; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=hqP18WRhHoIeaamVxk06L+FsuVM38yVza84PU7kLKOc=; b=Xc9yH1Vn4hQq/Vb8xDOP/L8NDLWLub2dBT6kQroWLkncuO5avLaBVzmG jfEz6o1HZk1xXmFZZs1zNL0WGnMURNJldeXwIgeiszeZ0KVuntYaa+dco Tpl+5LtzORoH0zI47jKv4XwEB1gi6s8JErwKpJEE9RZZseaUF378PvEfF A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgoFAL9VKVStJA2L/2dsb2JhbABggw5TW8oJCoZ6VAKBDRYBe4QDAQEBBAEBATcxAwsMAgICAQgRAQIBAQEBHgkHGwwLFAMGCAIEDgWIPg2/KgEXBI84EQEdMwcGgyiBHQWRZYQ6hwmBYpN7gXIYFoFDbAGBDjmBAgEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,620,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="359151523" Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Sep 2014 12:55:56 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com [173.37.183.85]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8TCtusM012358 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 29 Sep 2014 12:55:56 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.174]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 07:55:56 -0500 From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" To: Alexander Vainshtein Thread-Topic: [spring] Routing Directorate QA review of draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thread-Index: AQHP29P6mpNjXcNynEqOMeDwWEw/7ZwYXfMAgAAHnoA= Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 12:55:55 +0000 Message-ID: References: <54293ABE.5000407@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.147.74.73] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <7FC9028C075B3042BF0CEA7DCF62B4BD@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/EOBPzEUhDrMmqjGqqRz2r2ItFZE Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "spring@ietf.org" , "mpls@ietf.org" , "" , "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" , "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" , "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , Loa Andersson Subject: Re: [spring] Routing Directorate QA review of draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 12:55:59 -0000 Sasha, SIDs are globally allocated and distributed. So, the answer to your questio= n about P1, P2, P3 and P4 knowledge of the SID representing PE2 is "yes". R= outers within the domain must know the SID representing PE2 (e.g.: 102). Now, when it comes to the dataplane, it has to be understood that the label= on top of the packet MAY have local significance and therefore MAY change = at each hop according to mpls architecture. It is explained (succinctly, I = admit) in section 3. This because the SID represents an index into a label space, not a label va= lue. IOW, there is no requirement from SR to have globally assigned labels= . The SR architecture makes use of globally assigned indexes onto locally s= coped label space. This is, btw, what been implemented and currently (inter= op) tested. s. On Sep 29, 2014, at 2:28 PM, Alexander Vainshtein wrote: > Loa, and all, > I have read the draft and your review on the Wiki page, and I think that = your question about domain-wide labels is worth detailed discussion. > In Section 2 "Illustration", the draft says that: > - PE2 advertises (in the IGP) a host address 192.0.2.2/32 with its attac= hed node segment 102 > - PE1 installs the VPN prefix Z in the appropriate VRF and resolves the = next-hop onto the node segment 102. =20 > Upon receiving a packet from A destined to Z, PE1 pushes two labels o= nto the packet: the top label is 102, the bottom label is LZ.=20 > 102 identifies the node segment to PE2 and hence transports the packet = along the ECMP-aware shortest- path to PE2. >=20 > To me this strongly suggests that label 102 is understood by P1, P2, P3 a= nd P4 as a domain-wide label for an LSP that terminates in PE2. This looks = different from the downstream label allocation process as defined in RFC 30= 31 and RFC 5331.=20 > RFC 5331 clearly states in Section 4 "Upstream Label Assignment" that > > If the binding between L and F was made by a third party, say R3, and = then advertised to both Ru and Rd, we also refer to the label binding as=20 > "upstream-assigned". > >=20 > In our case it seems that assignment of label 102 and its binding to FEC = that is represented by Segment 102 is performed by PE2, so P1, P2, P3 and P= 4 should all treat this label as upstream-assigned. But this is never menti= oned in the draft. >=20 > I concur with you that this requires discussion in the MPLS WG, and I am = not sure such a discussion should be postponed until the SPRING WG LC. >=20 > I must admit that I did not read other SPRING documents (including one on= interoperability with existing label distribution protocols), and hence I = can be wrong in my conclusions. But the MPLS WG looks to me like exactly th= e place where this should be clarified. >=20 > My 2c, > Sasha=20 > Email: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com > Mobile: 054-9266302 >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson >> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 1:56 PM >> To: rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org >> Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; draft-filsfils-spr= ing- >> segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org; ; mpl= s- >> chairs@tools.ietf.org >> Subject: [spring] Routing Directorate QA review of draft-filsfils-spring= - >> segment-routing-mpls >>=20 >> Hello, >>=20 >> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate QA reviewer for draft-fi= lsfils- >> spring-segment-routing-mpls-03.txt. >>=20 >> The Routing Directorate QA reviews are intended to be a support to impro= ve >> the quality of RTG Area documents as the pass through the IETF process. >>=20 >> This is the QA review at the time of wg document adoption poll. >>=20 >> Document: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls-03.txt >> Reviewer: Loa Andersson >> Review Date: 2014-09-28 >> Working Group Adoption Poll end date: Oct 8, 2014 Intended Status: >> Standards Track >>=20 >> Please find the review at: >>=20 >> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/QA%20review%20Sep%202014 >>=20 >> /Loa >>=20 >> -- >>=20 >>=20 >> Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com >> Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu >> Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> spring mailing list >> spring@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >=20 > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring From nobody Mon Sep 29 06:03:09 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 208FB1A1BA9; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 06:02:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 Ywbbd4S7vDfl; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 06:02:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-db3on0714.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe04::714]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82AD41A6F8F; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 06:02:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.242.110.144) by AM3PR03MB610.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.242.109.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1034.13; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:02:19 +0000 Received: from AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.242.110.144]) by AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.242.110.144]) with mapi id 15.00.1034.003; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:02:19 +0000 From: Alexander Vainshtein To: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" Thread-Topic: [spring] Routing Directorate QA review of draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thread-Index: AQHP29P4IT/IjiSa90674LLz0cqIbpwYBOUwgAAM3ICAAABk4A== Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:02:18 +0000 Message-ID: <8d34f502f77b4c709473f4e043db7345@AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> References: <54293ABE.5000407@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [147.234.56.21] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:AM3PR03MB610; x-forefront-prvs: 034902F5BC x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(51704005)(199003)(24454002)(51444003)(252514010)(13464003)(377454003)(189002)(377424004)(19580405001)(85306004)(83072002)(81342003)(110136001)(33646002)(20776003)(74662003)(81542003)(90102001)(85852003)(64706001)(15202345003)(86362001)(31966008)(66066001)(54356999)(83322001)(107046002)(92566001)(2656002)(87936001)(10300001)(74316001)(120916001)(74502003)(77982003)(21056001)(108616004)(50986999)(79102003)(80022003)(76482002)(95666004)(76576001)(76176999)(97736003)(19580395003)(15975445006)(46102003)(230783001)(106356001)(4396001)(106116001)(105586002)(101416001)(99396003)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM3PR03MB610; H:AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: ecitele.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/TLoUBRQQ0D3z85mqmn6cp8tFvtk Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "spring@ietf.org" , "mpls@ietf.org" , "" , "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" , "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" , "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , Loa Andersson Subject: Re: [spring] Routing Directorate QA review of draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:02:57 -0000 Stefano, Lots of thanks for a prompt and detailed response. If, as you say, the SID is just a global index into the local label space = of each LSR, then the statement "PE1 pushes two label on the packet: the to= p one is 102" (for SID=3D102) is grossly misleading IMO, and should be chan= ged. Regards, Sasha=20 Email: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com Mobile: 054-9266302 > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprevidi@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 3:56 PM > To: Alexander Vainshtein > Cc: Loa Andersson; rtg-dir@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; rtg- > ads@tools.ietf.org; draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf= .org; > ; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [spring] Routing Directorate QA review of draft-filsfils-spr= ing- > segment-routing-mpls >=20 > Sasha, >=20 > SIDs are globally allocated and distributed. So, the answer to your quest= ion > about P1, P2, P3 and P4 knowledge of the SID representing PE2 is "yes". > Routers within the domain must know the SID representing PE2 (e.g.: 102). >=20 > Now, when it comes to the dataplane, it has to be understood that the lab= el > on top of the packet MAY have local significance and therefore MAY change > at each hop according to mpls architecture. It is explained (succinctly, = I admit) > in section 3. >=20 > This because the SID represents an index into a label space, not a label = value. > IOW, there is no requirement from SR to have globally assigned labels. Th= e > SR architecture makes use of globally assigned indexes onto locally scope= d > label space. This is, btw, what been implemented and currently (interop) > tested. >=20 > s. >=20 >=20 > On Sep 29, 2014, at 2:28 PM, Alexander Vainshtein wrote: > > Loa, and all, > > I have read the draft and your review on the Wiki page, and I think tha= t > your question about domain-wide labels is worth detailed discussion. > > In Section 2 "Illustration", the draft says that: > > - PE2 advertises (in the IGP) a host address 192.0.2.2/32 with its > > attached node segment 102 > > - PE1 installs the VPN prefix Z in the appropriate VRF and resolves the > next-hop onto the node segment 102. > > Upon receiving a packet from A destined to Z, PE1 pushes two labels= onto > the packet: the top label is 102, the bottom label is LZ. > > 102 identifies the node segment to PE2 and hence transports the packe= t > along the ECMP-aware shortest- path to PE2. > > > > To me this strongly suggests that label 102 is understood by P1, P2, P3= and > P4 as a domain-wide label for an LSP that terminates in PE2. This looks > different from the downstream label allocation process as defined in RFC > 3031 and RFC 5331. > > RFC 5331 clearly states in Section 4 "Upstream Label Assignment" that > > > > If the binding between L and F was made by a third party, say R3, > > and then advertised to both Ru and Rd, we also refer to the label bind= ing > as "upstream-assigned". > > > > > > In our case it seems that assignment of label 102 and its binding to FE= C that > is represented by Segment 102 is performed by PE2, so P1, P2, P3 and P4 > should all treat this label as upstream-assigned. But this is never menti= oned > in the draft. > > > > I concur with you that this requires discussion in the MPLS WG, and I a= m > not sure such a discussion should be postponed until the SPRING WG LC. > > > > I must admit that I did not read other SPRING documents (including one = on > interoperability with existing label distribution protocols), and hence I= can be > wrong in my conclusions. But the MPLS WG looks to me like exactly the pl= ace > where this should be clarified. > > > > My 2c, > > Sasha > > Email: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com > > Mobile: 054-9266302 > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa > >> Andersson > >> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 1:56 PM > >> To: rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org > >> Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; > >> draft-filsfils-spring- segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org; > >> ; mpls- chairs@tools.ietf.org > >> Subject: [spring] Routing Directorate QA review of > >> draft-filsfils-spring- segment-routing-mpls > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate QA reviewer for > >> draft-filsfils- spring-segment-routing-mpls-03.txt. > >> > >> The Routing Directorate QA reviews are intended to be a support to > >> improve the quality of RTG Area documents as the pass through the IETF > process. > >> > >> This is the QA review at the time of wg document adoption poll. > >> > >> Document: draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls-03.txt > >> Reviewer: Loa Andersson > >> Review Date: 2014-09-28 > >> Working Group Adoption Poll end date: Oct 8, 2014 Intended Status: > >> Standards Track > >> > >> Please find the review at: > >> > >> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/QA%20review%20Sep%20201 > >> 4 > >> > >> /Loa > >> > >> -- > >> > >> > >> Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com > >> Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu > >> Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 From nobody Mon Sep 29 06:52:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B11EB1A1AD5; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 06:52:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.686 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham 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 UcZAvk2tD_1F; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 06:52:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 759981A6F8D; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 06:52:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.113] (81-229-83-119-no65.business.telia.com [81.229.83.119]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 094BC180131A; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 15:52:16 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <54296411.8060304@pi.nu> Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 15:52:17 +0200 From: Loa Andersson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexander Vainshtein References: <54293ABE.5000407@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/Gw4bOLLdG65prEi4xbDtQ5awd5Y Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "spring@ietf.org" , "mpls@ietf.org" , "" , "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" , "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" , "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] [RTG-DIR] Routing Directorate QA review of draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:52:18 -0000 Sasha, I did NOT mean to imply that this discussion in the MPLS wg should wait until the SPRING wg last call, on the contrary if the answer to my question is that this a domain wide label, then it has to be brought to the MPLS wg BEFORE this is adopted as a SPRING wg document. /Loa On 2014-09-29 14:28, Alexander Vainshtein wrote: > I concur with you that this requires discussion in the MPLS WG, and I am not sure such a discussion should be postponed until the SPRING WG LC. -- Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 From nobody Mon Sep 29 06:56:22 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 238611A6FAB; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 06:56:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 p3WMvcN2kWCd; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 06:56:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-db3on0700.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe04::700]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54CEB1A1AFF; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 06:56:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.242.110.144) by AM3PR03MB611.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.242.109.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1034.13; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:55:54 +0000 Received: from AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.242.110.144]) by AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.242.110.144]) with mapi id 15.00.1034.003; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:55:53 +0000 From: Alexander Vainshtein To: Loa Andersson Thread-Topic: [RTG-DIR] [spring] Routing Directorate QA review of draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thread-Index: AQHP29P4IT/IjiSa90674LLz0cqIbpwYBOUwgAAcnICAAADKMA== Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:55:53 +0000 Message-ID: References: <54293ABE.5000407@pi.nu> <54296411.8060304@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: <54296411.8060304@pi.nu> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [147.234.56.21] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:AM3PR03MB611; x-forefront-prvs: 034902F5BC x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(13464003)(377424004)(24454002)(51704005)(189002)(252514010)(377454003)(199003)(83072002)(97736003)(90102001)(66066001)(101416001)(31966008)(106356001)(76576001)(79102003)(33646002)(50986999)(64706001)(85852003)(107046002)(110136001)(108616004)(105586002)(85306004)(83322001)(74662003)(86362001)(81342003)(19580405001)(74502003)(46102003)(76176999)(81542003)(4396001)(80022003)(77982003)(21056001)(120916001)(54356999)(87936001)(92566001)(74316001)(95666004)(10300001)(99396003)(2656002)(230783001)(20776003)(19580395003)(76482002)(106116001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM3PR03MB611; H:AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: ecitele.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/Rtt2GoHEE-iu8aR095ZWw5e_Otk Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "spring@ietf.org" , "mpls@ietf.org" , "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" , "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" , "" , "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] [RTG-DIR] Routing Directorate QA review of draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:56:19 -0000 Loa, Seems we are in sync on this matter. Regards, Sasha=20 Email: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com Mobile: 054-9266302 > -----Original Message----- > From: rtg-dir [mailto:rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersso= n > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 4:52 PM > To: Alexander Vainshtein > Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; chairs@tools.ietf.org>; draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing- > mpls@tools.ietf.org; rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] [spring] Routing Directorate QA review of draft-fi= lsfils- > spring-segment-routing-mpls >=20 > Sasha, >=20 > I did NOT mean to imply that this discussion in the MPLS wg should wait u= ntil > the SPRING wg last call, on the contrary if the answer to my question is = that > this a domain wide label, then it has to be brought to the MPLS wg BEFORE > this is adopted as a SPRING wg document. >=20 > /Loa >=20 > On 2014-09-29 14:28, Alexander Vainshtein wrote: > > I concur with you that this requires discussion in the MPLS WG, and I a= m > not sure such a discussion should be postponed until the SPRING WG LC. >=20 > -- >=20 >=20 > Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com > Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu > Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 From nobody Mon Sep 29 07:01:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2400A1A1AD5; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 07:01:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.287 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.287 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham 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 ZMlOz_CAmteI; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 07:00:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 801961A0395; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 07:00:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1113; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1411999260; x=1413208860; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=L5vURmzUqYhr5WCXOXRtQ1bKwGALQMytFEn3gtcB3WE=; b=iFzPoswafIz0uelvoFUnyaqfWR61bEfPDx/Xg64Zu84Nyh0Eqt7oAt0h kvj0WPvbbQSsARWHpadlMZEtiuVXjjOLiprpXpZ0yRkRJB6x+c2KceuOh yqGmtkr6ZaqKvpRIKHulBUBmKiOusTjn4yaj6vEbFT2aHeGWMJqFfCFBY s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgkFANplKVStJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABggw5TW8oJCoZ6VAKBDhYBe4QEAQEEAQEBNzEDCw4CAgEIGB4QGwwLJQIEDgWIPg2/MwETBASPOBEBHTMHgy6BHQWRZYtDlV2CIIFDbIEPOYECAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,620,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="82361045" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Sep 2014 14:00:59 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com [173.37.183.86]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8TE0wj0007832 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:00:58 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([169.254.1.174]) by xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com ([173.37.183.86]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 09:00:58 -0500 From: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" To: Loa Andersson Thread-Topic: [spring] [RTG-DIR] Routing Directorate QA review of draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls Thread-Index: AQHP2+ydV7DaNVEy4kS4FgFgzYomJJwYd4uA Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:00:58 +0000 Message-ID: References: <54293ABE.5000407@pi.nu> <54296411.8060304@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: <54296411.8060304@pi.nu> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.196.87] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <495538B27EC7274ABA4B341AE71D5FAB@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/PuY9xg58T8XvE5r0Wbc5OIcjkqg Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "spring@ietf.org" , Alexander Vainshtein , "mpls@ietf.org" , "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" , "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" , "" , "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] [RTG-DIR] Routing Directorate QA review of draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:01:01 -0000 On Sep 29, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Loa Andersson wrote: > Sasha, >=20 > I did NOT mean to imply that this discussion in the MPLS wg should > wait until the SPRING wg last call, on the contrary if the answer to > my question is that this a domain wide label, then it has to be brought > to the MPLS wg BEFORE this is adopted as a SPRING wg document. I agree with you and the answer is "no" we don't want to bring a discussion= about domain-wide labels because this is not a requirement of segment rout= ing. s. >=20 > /Loa >=20 > On 2014-09-29 14:28, Alexander Vainshtein wrote: >> I concur with you that this requires discussion in the MPLS WG, and I am= not sure such a discussion should be postponed until the SPRING WG LC. >=20 > --=20 >=20 >=20 > Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com > Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu > Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring From nobody Mon Sep 29 07:10:24 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D166A1A1ABA; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 07:10:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.686 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham 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 weCFFI2RKiUu; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 07:10:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 038EF1A1A9E; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 07:10:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.113] (81-229-83-119-no65.business.telia.com [81.229.83.119]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 86F37180131A; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:10:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5429683E.8040103@pi.nu> Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:10:06 +0200 From: Loa Andersson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" References: <54293ABE.5000407@pi.nu> <54296411.8060304@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/jsu-g2FjwltR_8iIBeKkUoSyvuo Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "spring@ietf.org" , Alexander Vainshtein , "mpls@ietf.org" , "" , "draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls@tools.ietf.org" , "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" , "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spring] [RTG-DIR] Routing Directorate QA review of draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:10:13 -0000 Stefano, I'm fine with that, but I guess that the SPRING wg chairs and/or the rtg AD's need to make the consensus call on that. /Loa On 2014-09-29 16:00, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) wrote: > On Sep 29, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Loa Andersson wrote: >> Sasha, >> >> I did NOT mean to imply that this discussion in the MPLS wg should >> wait until the SPRING wg last call, on the contrary if the answer to >> my question is that this a domain wide label, then it has to be brought >> to the MPLS wg BEFORE this is adopted as a SPRING wg document. > > > I agree with you and the answer is "no" we don't want to bring a discussion about domain-wide labels because this is not a requirement of segment routing. > > s. > > >> >> /Loa >> >> On 2014-09-29 14:28, Alexander Vainshtein wrote: >>> I concur with you that this requires discussion in the MPLS WG, and I am not sure such a discussion should be postponed until the SPRING WG LC. >> >> -- >> >> >> Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com >> Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu >> Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> spring mailing list >> spring@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > -- Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 From nobody Tue Sep 30 10:48:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37A1D1A7005; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 10:48:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 1B861_3xL7bu; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 10:48:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x232.google.com (mail-wg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09CDF1A7004; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 10:48:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id l18so14645885wgh.21 for ; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 10:48:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=+1NfDci6qe6WhAjwLrc5I8lLis5owNJ6I/fdh4zYQ9M=; b=Ufx1a8opfkIqWleBcLfH8xCzg9ZaBh75xX22kiI2Oo5+jep/I0OyBUUURyBqCWmCYl D7AXciJjkVPMq/dljPn5W49El3EUctsPnUUyh2VPnraFHSDHcSLjFMfeeuFAzgULwePC buk4j+dVWnUUR0IOZfhy/I421FYIKbVLmllsg0qeSwThMdbmEXo8ZBpMw46U/dO8trQn 3SJO0mn+HCyz0bXQ0Pb/+a8blsD/leO5UD2U5Oa+oCBEUdCpuKzGY4HDMSRfry6Fn4Yv WYkoTCQ/J+WmzdNUcizyPAnE0PIduwyuqOOSjwA/Qvvc4LqZZSjcVr8lg89ofdr5VY6/ qP7g== X-Received: by 10.180.21.165 with SMTP id w5mr7399976wie.46.1412099305648; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 10:48:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: sriganeshkini@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.235.33 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 10:47:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140930000500.7476.1694.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20140930000500.7476.1694.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Sriganesh Kini Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 10:47:55 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: yETbyb48uKT9mIgDRH23eNYHFxw Message-ID: To: "spring@ietf.org" , "mpls@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bae48e880395305044bfd64 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/5mW4BPFkJpvRfK-_60ah2O7cD94 Cc: "draft-kini-mpls-spring-entropy-label@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [spring] Fwd: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-kini-mpls-spring-entropy-label-01.txt X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 17:48:32 -0000 --047d7bae48e880395305044bfd64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 FYI Comments welcome. Sri ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 5:05 PM Subject: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-kini-mpls-spring-entropy-label-01.txt To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: mpls@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working Group of the IETF. Title : Entropy labels for source routed stacked tunnels Authors : Sriganesh Kini Kireeti Kompella Siva Sivabalan Stephane Litkowski Rob Shakir Xiaohu Xu Wim Hendrickx Jeff Tantsura Filename : draft-kini-mpls-spring-entropy-label-01.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2014-09-29 Abstract: Source routed tunnel stacking is a technique that can be leveraged to provide a method to steer a packet through a controlled set of segments. This can be applied to the Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) data plane. Entropy label (EL) is a technique used in MPLS to improve load balancing. This document examines and describes how ELs are to be applied to source routed stacked tunnels. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kini-mpls-spring-entropy-label/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kini-mpls-spring-entropy-label-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-kini-mpls-spring-entropy-label-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls --047d7bae48e880395305044bfd64 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
FYI

Comments welcome.


Sri

---------- Forward= ed message ----------
From: <internet-drafts@ie= tf.org>
Date: Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 5:05 PM
Subject: [mp= ls] I-D Action: draft-kini-mpls-spring-entropy-label-01.txt
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
Cc: mpls@ietf.org



A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies.
=C2=A0This draft is a work item of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Workin= g Group of the IETF.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Title=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0:= Entropy labels for source routed stacked tunnels
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Authors=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: Srig= anesh Kini
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Kireeti Kompella
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Siva Sivabalan
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Stephane Litkowski
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Rob Shakir
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Xiaohu Xu
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Wim Hendrickx
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Jeff Tantsura
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Filename=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : draft-kin= i-mpls-spring-entropy-label-01.txt
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Pages=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0:= 10
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Date=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 := 2014-09-29

Abstract:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Source routed tunnel stacking is a technique that can be lever= aged to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0provide a method to steer a packet through a controlled set of=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0segments.=C2=A0 This can be applied to the Multi Protocol Labe= l Switching
=C2=A0 =C2=A0(MPLS) data plane.=C2=A0 Entropy label (EL) is a technique use= d in MPLS to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0improve load balancing.=C2=A0 This document examines and descr= ibes how ELs
=C2=A0 =C2=A0are to be applied to source routed stacked tunnels.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kini-mpls-= spring-entropy-label/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kini-mpls-spring-ent= ropy-label-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-kini= -mpls-spring-entropy-label-01


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp= .ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

--047d7bae48e880395305044bfd64--