* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Spring Status Pages

Source Packet Routing in Networking (Active WG)
Rtg Area: Alia Atlas, Alvaro Retana, Deborah Brungard | 2013-Oct-25 —  

IETF-100 spring minutes

Session 2017-11-15 1520-1650: Olivia - Audio stream - spring chatroom


minutes-100-spring-00 minutes

          Jeff Tantsura
          Keyur: fairly simple draft, I like it
          Xiaohu Xu
          Discussion on both drafts
          Adrian F. peace treaty has been signed. strategy for unified approach
          being worked through
          Xiaohu: I was not in that meeting
          Ahmed: This belongs in SPRING, not in MPLS
          Jeff T.: Does not matter where. ADs to decide.
          Alvaro (as AD): would personally like to see it here in SPRING but this
          has already been discussed between the chairs
          Should nevertheless be decided based on future merged draft, though I
          still think this should be in SPRING
          Wim: we should involve all uthors in the discussion
          Adrian: Don't care where, both groups should nevertheless be involved
          Loa: both documents are currently in Canddidate for Adoption state in
          MPLS. Also 7510 was developed in MPLS.
          Bruno: 7510 is not mpls specific in fact
          Adrian: true but our focus is mpls
          Wim: 7510 would not work for VXLAN
          Bruno: true
          Xiaohu: no strong opinion regarding which WG owns this
          Loa: But you have requested adoption in mpls
          Martin: we will not adopt one document in a WG and the other in the
          other WG
          Bruno: when will new (merged) document be ready?
          Adrian: best case 4 weeks
          Himanshu: preference for SPRING to be the home
          Alvaro: let's wait and decide
          Adrian Farrel
          draft-clad-spring-segment-routing-service-chaining   /
          Gaurav Dawra
          Greg M. comparison with SFC is inapporpriate in draft. You should use
          exact same terminology.
          Gaurav: SFF is no different than SR forwarder
          ?: couldn't we just have a terminology mapping?
          Ahmed: may not be a 1:1 mapping
          ?: if you reuse SFC architecture, then it would be good to ruse same
          Liang Geng, Mach Chen
          Greg M.: you use both global and domaine unique. Which one is really
          Liang: domain unique
          Greg: which goals do you have?
          Liang: 3 UCs we've described
          Dave A.: couple of interesting aspects to this draft. Interested in
          ?: other solutions exist for doing at least of of these UCs
          ?: PM can be done via steering
          Omar: useful work but it needs to describe how transit nodes look into
          Shraddha Hegde
          no question taken in interest of time
          Darren Dukes
          Greg: for lattency and jitter, do you use live data?
          Darren: depends on system used at the edge
          Greg: how do you do detection?
          Darren: up to CE to decide

Generated from PyHt script /wg/spring/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -