Subject: [spring] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-spring-01-01: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 20:01:52 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-spring-01-01: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-spring/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm balloting No Objection, but hope that people look at the SPRING/IPPM
interaction I mentioned below. Otherwise, this is mostly editorial.

I'm not sure who or what finds it advantageous to use loose routing in this
text -

"Full explicit control (through loose or strict
path specification) can be achieved in a network comprising only SPRING
nodes, however SPRING nodes must inter-operate through loose routing in
existing networks and may find it advantageous to use loose routing for
other network applications."

I THINK the reference is to a SPRING node, which doesn't make a lot of sense to
me, but I'm guessing.

Does everyone else know what "specificities" are meant here?

"o Operation, Administration and Management (OAM), and traffic accounting
in networks with SR-MPLS and SRv6 data planes in the case where SR
introduces specificities compared to MPLS or IPv6 technologies."

and

"o Performance Management (PM) and monitoring in networks with SR-MPLS
and SRv6 data planes in the case where SR introduces specificities
compared to MPLS or IPv6 technologies."

On "Performance Management and monitoring", I note that
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data/ includes Segment
Routing as one of its targeted encapsulations. IPPM is Mirja's working group as
of about a month ago, but I'm wondering what the overlap might be. Is this
something the two groups/ADs have talked about?

It might be less surprising to readers if the working group names under

"Specific expected interactions"

were capitalized.