[spring] Confimring resolution of issue #3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

Issue #3 in the datatracker reads The definition for the SegmentsLeft field of the SRH as currently stated in [RFC8754][RFC8200] no longer holds true in the presence of C-SIDs. This definition needs to be updated to still hold true in the presence of C-SIDs. The response from the document ed

Re: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

Dear Authors and Chairs, I have a clarification question and appreciate your consideration. It seems to me that the proposed text updates either RFC 8754 or RFC 8200 where the Segments Left field is defined as: - RFC 8754: Segments Left: Defined in [RFC8200], Section 4.4. - RFC 8200:

Re: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

Hi Greg, There is a verified Errata on RFC8754 to mention the Segment List since it is not something RFC8200 defines. https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7102 Thanks Suresh > On Aug 9, 2023, at 2:30 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: > > Dear Authors and Ch

Re: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

Hi Suresh, thank you for your explanation. Regards, Greg On Wed, Aug 9, 2023, 12:47 Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi Greg, > There is a verified Errata on RFC8754 to mention the Segment List since > it is not something RFC8200 defines. > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7102 > > Thanks > Sur

Re: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

The resolution works to me, so I believe the proposed resolution is sufficient to close the issue. Thanks, Cheng From: spring On Behalf Of Joel Halpern Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 11:00 PM To: SPRING WG List Subject: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #3 https://datatracker.ietf.org

Re: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

Agree with closing this issue. Same with the issue #4 & #5. Thanks, Mengxiao From: spring On Behalf Of Joel Halpern Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 11:00 PM To: SPRING WG List Subject: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6

Re: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

] Confimring resolution of issue #3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/ ___ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring Issue #3 in the datatracker reads The definition for the

Re: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/ Issue #3 in the datatracker reads The definition for the SegmentsLeft field of the SRH as currently stated in [RFC8754][RFC8200] no longer holds true in the presence of C-SIDs. This definition needs to be updated to still hold true in the

Re: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

resolution of issue #3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/ Issue #3 in the datatracker reads The definition for the SegmentsLeft field of the SRH as currently stated in [RFC8754][RFC8200] no longer holds true in the presence of C-SIDs. This definition needs

Re: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

The errata to RFC8754 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7102) improved the definition of the segments left field for all SID behaviors and flavors (including CSID). I agree, this issue is closed. Darren On 2023-08-08, 11:00 AM, "spring" wrote: Issue #3 in the datatracker reads The defi

Re: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/ Issue #3 in the datatracker reads The definition for the SegmentsLeft field of the SRH as currently stated in [RFC8754][RFC8200] no longer holds true in the presence of C-SIDs. This definition needs to be updated to still hold true in the presence

Re: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

Thank you for clarifying the point. I agree with closing this issue based on Errata 7102 for RFC 8754. Yuya On 2023/08/08 23:59, Joel Halpern wrote: Issue #3 in the datatracker reads The definition for the SegmentsLeft field of the SRH as currently stated in [RFC8754][RFC8200] no longer holds

Re: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

Dear WG, In my opinion the below wording resolves the issue. Best regards, Martin Von: spring im Auftrag von Joel Halpern Datum: Dienstag, 8. August 2023 um 17:00 An: SPRING WG List Betreff: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6

Re: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

Hi Joel and WG, The new wording is aligned with our understanding and Jericho line implementation. OK to close the issue. Thanks, Shay On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 6:00 PM Joel Halpern wrote: > Issue #3 in the datatracker reads > > The definition for the SegmentsLeft field of the SRH as currently st

Re: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/ Issue #3 in the datatracker reads The definition for the SegmentsLeft field of the SRH as currently stated in [RFC8754][RFC8200] no longer holds true in the presence of C-SIDs. This definition needs to be updated to still hold true in the

Re: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

Hi, Agreed that the resolution is valid and issue #3 can be closed. Issues #4 and #5 can also be closed. Brgds Amit D Rakuten From: Joel Halpern Date: Tuesday, 8 August 2023 at 8:29 PM To: SPRING WG List Subject: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc

Re: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

I agree the resolution is sufficient and issue #3 can be closed. Thank you Gyan On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 11:00 AM Joel Halpern wrote: > Issue #3 in the datatracker reads > > The definition for the SegmentsLeft field of the SRH as currently stated > in [RFC8754][RFC8200] no longer holds true in t

Re: [spring] Confimring resolution of issue #3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/

I agree with the resolution for all issues and can all be closed. Thank you Gyan On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 10:26 AM Gyan Mishra wrote: > I agree the resolution is sufficient and issue #3 can be closed. > > Thank you > > Gyan > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 11:00 AM Joel Halpern wrote: > >> Issue #3