Ron, > They remind us that draft-ietf-spring-network-programming are far from maturity.
To me it actually highlights something quite contrary. It is that some folks are pretty far from appreciating or even grasping the value of the proposal. In your other note you have extensively elaborated well on how to effectively kill innovation in IETF. If we would be following your advice there would be almost non documents which build on former work and update former work. But most importantly documenting something does not force anyone to actually use it if they choose so. This entire smoke about header insertion from what I have been told has some technical concerns about real source awareness about say MTU issues. Well for one if I am doing insertion in my network I better make sure I do not drop the packet based on the MTU. It is so basic ... of course I must clean up when I fwd the packet to other domain but this is basic network hygiene. In the same time folks are happy to encap + add EHs, DOs etc ... on the grounds that src of the encap will be in the packet. Is this sufficient .. even if ICMP is sent to such src (domian ingress) I bet such domain ingress will not notify the original packet src anyway. And with encap the packet gets much bigger anyway. But I was not part of v6 creators and I think I will keep it that way based on that little thread we had here :) Best, R.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
