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. 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? -- 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
