inline… > On Sep 5, 2019, at 4:01 PM, Fernando Gont <fg...@si6networks.com> wrote: > > On 5/9/19 22:52, Darren Dukes (ddukes) wrote: >> Hey Fernando, since you’re lost, here are some more waypoints to help >> you find your way ;) >> >> - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming mentions SRH insertion in >> only 2 of 39 SID behaviors - i.e. it’s a small part of the draft, and >> all insert variants have an encapsulation variant defined. > > I don't see how this changes the discussion here.
Perhaps you should read the whole document Fernando. > Are you suggesting > that EH insertion can be removed from the document and there would still > be value in pursuing the document? > > >> - At IETF 101, the 6man WG confirmed that SRH insertion must be worked >> on before draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming can progress to RFC >> - i.e. there are not surprises anywhere. >> >> - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming added a normative reference >> to draft-voyer-6man-extension-header-insertion to document that fact. > > Among the possible options is that EH-insertion is never worked out. In > which case, what's the point of basing something on EH insertion when > the status quo is that EH insertion is not allowed, and there does not > seem to be any indication that that will change anytime soon? > Ah, an excellent reason to never work on anything: if its not easy then don’t bother with the work! Perhaps we should all grab a martini instead ;) Darren > -- > Fernando Gont > SI6 Networks > e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com > PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 > > > > _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
