On 6/9/19 22:13, Voyer, Daniel wrote: > I also agree 100% with Robert and Dirk. > [...] > > Second – facts: please do click the link and check the timeline: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header/and > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions/, etc… > > > > That’s right, for SRH its 5 years, which means 15 IETF meetings with few > 1000’s of replies and is about to become RFC. ISIS/SRv6 its 12 IETF > meetings, about to go last call …
Side comment: time that has elapsed since a document was first published does not necessarily relate on maturity. It may also mean that the work was stalled because there were issues to be solved, it was hard to get consensus on, etc. Thanks, -- 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
