[spring] Objection to wg adoption call for draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression (was: Re: Question from SPRING regarding draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression)

2021-10-23 Thread Nick Hilliard
Hi Stefano, Stefano Salsano wrote on 23/10/2021 01:29: if an operator wants to combine CSIDs of different length, building the debug tools becomes more complex, but this actually depends on the specific choices and configurations Exactly. For example, problems will occur when the operator cha

Re: [spring] CSID proposed clarifications

2021-10-23 Thread Gyan Mishra
Darren & Authors The CSID proposed clarifications looks excellent. In the current draft revision it was clear that both Next and Replace use the IPv6 IID portion of the address as the container to index the C-SID using Argument portion SRv6 SID, Next having 16 bit NF and 64 bit argument, and R

Re: [spring] Typo correction Re: Question from SPRING regarding draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression

2021-10-23 Thread Gyan Mishra
Hi Chengli Please see my reply to Darren about the pseudocode update to the draft. I highly recommend updating the draft per Darren’s updates, as this change will really helps us understand the next and replace pseudocode processing as most of the questions all related to indexing of the bits wi

Re: [spring] Objection to wg adoption call for draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression (was: Re: Question from SPRING regarding draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression)

2021-10-23 Thread Sander Steffann
Hi, > On this basis, I'm objecting to the adoption of > draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression as a WG draft, and > respectfully suggest that the spring wg does not adopt any draft in future > which allows for different C-SID lengths but doesn't encode C-SIDs as > {length,value} tuple