Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Problem Statement and Requirements
RFC 7855

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2018-12-20
08 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'The ability for a node to specify a forwarding path, other than the normal shortest path, ...
2018-06-09
08 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Errata tag)
2016-05-25
08 (System) RFC published
2016-05-19
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2016-05-06
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2016-04-27
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2016-04-13
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2016-04-13
08 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2016-04-13
08 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2016-04-13
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2016-04-13
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2016-04-13
08 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2016-04-13
08 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2016-04-13
08 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2016-04-13
08 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2016-04-13
08 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2016-04-13
08 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2016-04-12
08 Deborah Brungard
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my Discuss and improving Section 3.3. I still find the various comparisons on using a distributed approach vs. a centralized ...
2016-04-12
08 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] Position for Deborah Brungard has been changed to Abstain from Discuss
2016-04-06
08 Terry Manderson [Ballot comment]
Thank you for the update in addressing my concerns in this rev, clearing my DISCUSS.
2016-04-06
08 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] Position for Terry Manderson has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2016-04-06
08 Stefano Previdi New version available: draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-08.txt
2016-03-17
07 Bruno Decraene Added to session: IETF-95: spring  Tue-1400
2016-03-02
07 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for adding the new security considerations text.

My take-away from that is:

- The architecture needs to have a clearly defined
  ...
2016-03-02
07 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2016-03-01
07 Brian Haberman
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for addressing the discuss points raised...

I do not see a benefit in the publication of this document (or most problem ...
2016-03-01
07 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Haberman has been changed to Abstain from Discuss
2016-03-01
07 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
-
It seems to me that, when speaking of SPRING, people speaks of Segment Routing.
The section title 3.3.1.2.2. is "SDN/SR use-case" btw. ...
2016-03-01
07 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benoit Claise has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2016-03-01
07 Stefano Previdi IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2016-03-01
07 Stefano Previdi New version available: draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-07.txt
2016-02-04
06 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2016-02-04
06 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot discuss]

I concur with the other folks who've bemoaned the fact that
the security considerations text is less comprehensive than
the charter text. Which ...
2016-02-04
06 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2016-02-04
06 Joel Jaeggli
[Ballot comment]
I find myself rather unsatisfied by

  The SPRING architecture SHOULD leverage the existing MPLS dataplane
  without any modification and leverage IPv6 ...
2016-02-04
06 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2016-02-03
06 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
I agree with Alia's comment, "This draft doesn't feel as if it will be a useful RFC in 2 years."  I think this ...
2016-02-03
06 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2016-02-03
06 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
I'm not going to block over this, but I share the question about why this should be published as an RFC. It seems ...
2016-02-03
06 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2016-02-03
06 Brian Haberman
[Ballot discuss]
The following is a training review from the Suresh Krishnan (incoming INT AD)

* Section 3.4

If the intent is to create a ...
2016-02-03
06 Brian Haberman Ballot discuss text updated for Brian Haberman
2016-02-03
06 Brian Haberman
[Ballot discuss]
* Section 3.4

If the intent is to create a new RH type how will the interoperability or backward compatibility be possible? Specifically ...
2016-02-03
06 Brian Haberman
[Ballot comment]
* Section 2

This section talks about the Routing header defined in RFC2460 but does not mention that the RH0 has been deprecated ...
2016-02-03
06 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2016-02-03
06 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2016-01-31
06 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation - Defer
2016-01-31
06 Deborah Brungard
[Ballot comment]
As others commented, the document is missing the identification of key requirements, “MUST”.

The Abstract’s last sentence and Section 3.1 say the objective ...
2016-01-31
06 Deborah Brungard Ballot comment text updated for Deborah Brungard
2016-01-31
06 Deborah Brungard
[Ballot comment]
As others commented, the document is missing the identification of key requirements, “MUST”.

The Abstract’s last sentence and Section 3.1 say the objective ...
2016-01-31
06 Deborah Brungard Ballot comment text updated for Deborah Brungard
2016-01-31
06 Deborah Brungard
[Ballot discuss]
The main focus of my discuss are the disparaging comments on MPLS and RSVP-TE for the apparent purpose of justifying the need for ...
2016-01-31
06 Deborah Brungard
[Ballot comment]
As others commented, the document is missing the identification of key requirements, “MUST”. The Abstract’s last sentence and Section 3.1 say the objective ...
2016-01-31
06 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2016-01-25
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Tim Chown.
2016-01-22
06 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
-
It seems to me that, when speaking of SPRING, people speaks of Segment Routing.
The section title 3.3.1.2.2. is "SDN/SR use-case" btw. ...
2016-01-22
06 Benoît Claise Ballot comment text updated for Benoit Claise
2016-01-20
06 Deborah Brungard Telechat date has been changed to 2016-02-04 from 2016-01-21
2016-01-20
06 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation
2016-01-20
06 Alissa Cooper
[Ballot comment]
(1)
I'm surprised that almost all of the requirements in this document are SHOULDs, since they mostly apply to an architecture and not ...
2016-01-20
06 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2016-01-20
06 Alia Atlas
[Ballot comment]
A terminology section and describing at all the bullets of desired functionality would
improve the readability.  This draft doesn't feel as if it ...
2016-01-20
06 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2016-01-18
06 Terry Manderson
[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for putting in the effort in writing this. Firstly, I concur with Benoit's observation about text taken from the charter and laid ...
2016-01-18
06 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2016-01-18
06 Benoît Claise
[Ballot discuss]
I would like to discuss this point with the responsible area director during the telechat. No action from the authors is required on ...
2016-01-18
06 Benoît Claise Ballot discuss text updated for Benoit Claise
2016-01-18
06 Benoît Claise
[Ballot discuss]
I would like to discuss this point with the responsible area director during the telechat. No action from the authors is required on ...
2016-01-18
06 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
-
It seems to me that, when speaking of SPRING, people speaks of Segment Routing.
The section title 3.3.1.2.2. is "SDN/SR use-case" btw. ...
2016-01-18
06 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2016-01-16
06 Meral Shirazipour Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour.
2016-01-15
06 Meral Shirazipour Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour.
2016-01-14
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2016-01-14
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2016-01-07
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Klaas Wierenga.
2016-01-05
06 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2016-01-05
06 Alvaro Retana Ballot has been issued
2016-01-05
06 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2016-01-05
06 Alvaro Retana Created "Approve" ballot
2016-01-05
06 Alvaro Retana Ballot writeup was changed
2016-01-05
06 Alvaro Retana Ballot approval text was generated
2016-01-05
06 Alvaro Retana Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-01-05
06 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2015-12-28
06 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2015-12-28
06 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't ...
2015-12-22
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Chown
2015-12-22
06 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Chown
2015-12-19
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2015-12-19
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Meral Shirazipour
2015-12-17
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Klaas Wierenga
2015-12-17
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Klaas Wierenga
2015-12-16
06 Pierre Francois
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? ...
2015-12-15
06 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2015-12-15
06 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: pifranco@cisco.com, aretana@cisco.com, draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement@ietf.org, spring-chairs@ietf.org, spring@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> ...
2015-12-15
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2015-12-15
06 Alvaro Retana Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-01-21
2015-12-15
06 Alvaro Retana Last call was requested
2015-12-15
06 Alvaro Retana Ballot approval text was generated
2015-12-15
06 Alvaro Retana Ballot writeup was generated
2015-12-15
06 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2015-12-15
06 Alvaro Retana Last call announcement was changed
2015-12-15
06 Alvaro Retana Last call announcement was generated
2015-12-15
06 Alvaro Retana Last call announcement was generated
2015-12-14
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2015-12-14
06 Stefano Previdi New version available: draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06.txt
2015-12-10
05 Alvaro Retana
AD Review:

I just finished reviewing this document.  I do have some comments (below); I don't think any of them can be called  a "show ...
2015-12-10
05 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2015-12-10
05 Alvaro Retana Notification list changed to aretana@cisco.com
2015-12-09
05 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2015-11-01
05 John Scudder
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? ...
2015-11-01
05 John Scudder Responsible AD changed to Alvaro Retana
2015-11-01
05 John Scudder IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2015-11-01
05 John Scudder IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2015-11-01
05 John Scudder IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2015-10-19
05 Stefano Previdi New version available: draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-05.txt
2015-10-14
04 (System) Notify list changed from "Pierre Francois" <pifranco@cisco.com> to (None)
2015-10-05
04 Pierre Francois Changed document writeup
2015-09-08
04 Bruno Decraene Notification list changed to "Pierre Francois" <pifranco@cisco.com>
2015-09-08
04 Bruno Decraene Document shepherd changed to Pierre Francois
2015-06-16
04 John Scudder IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2015-04-27
04 Stefano Previdi New version available: draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-04.txt
2014-10-23
03 Stefano Previdi New version available: draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-03.txt
2014-10-07
02 Alvaro Retana Document shepherd changed to Alvaro Retana
2014-10-01
02 Stefano Previdi New version available: draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-02.txt
2014-09-23
01 Alvaro Retana IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2014-06-26
01 Stefano Previdi New version available: draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-01.txt
2014-06-05
00 Alvaro Retana Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2014-06-05
00 Alvaro Retana This document now replaces draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement instead of None
2014-05-13
00 Stefano Previdi New version available: draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-00.txt