I would suggest that people read RFC 7282 - "On Consensus and Humming in the
IETF"...
My question is: How do you reach Consensus when the complaint is about how many
milliseconds it takes to shoot down a proposal?
Is this about the proposal or the vendor involved?
>
> A number of us wonder
The understanding at IETF98 with rfc2460 moving to rfc8200 was that any
tightening in header processing language was to get to an adopted standard and
NOT to be used as club to bludgeon innovation by a small group of loud hummers.
> On February 26, 2020 at 2:15 PM Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>
I'm not aware of any undisclosed IPR related to this document.
John Leddy
> -Original Message-
> From: "bruno.decra...@orange.com"
> Date: Thursday, 5 December 2019 at 17:50
> To: 'SPRING WG List' ,
> draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
>
> Subject: IPR poll for
I support
From: spring mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org > On
Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 11:54 AM
To: SPRING WG mailto:spring@ietf.org >
Subject: [spring] draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming - 2 week Early
As co-author, I’m not aware of any undisclosed IPR that related to this
document.
John Leddy
> On December 5, 2019 at 11:50 AM bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
>
>
> Hi SPRING WG,
>
> In parallel to the WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming, we
> would like to poll for IPR.
>
I support the WG adoption of draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming.
>
> From: spring On Behalf Of Rob Shakir
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 2:14 AM
> To: SPRING WG List
> Subject: [spring] WG Adoption Call:
> draft-xuclad-spring-sr-service-programming
>
>
>
>
Should the NextHeader values be a union of all the Link layer protocol types
over IPv6, Ethertypes, IP Protocols, Next Headers and Well known ports - maybe,
but it seems tough to get into 8 bits...
Thank the stars that all those application guys use the well known ports for
the correct
Joel,
It would be good to factor in the ever growing amount of video on the Internet
(and other large data transfer applications vs voice traffic).
If larger MTU's could reliably be used, I think you would see a large amount of
traffic starting to use something larger than 1500 byte Cells.
I am not aware of IPR that applies to
draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming
John Leddy
> On March 13, 2019 at 2:50 PM bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
>
>
> Hi authors, SPRING WG,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In parallel to the call for
