Jim, Please accept this comment in the spirit which it is intended, between two old friends.
It doesn't matter if there are a million existing SRv6 deployments. The following is undeniable: * SRv6 is not nearly so close to standardization as some would claim. If it were, last week's heated email exchanges would not have occurred * Some customers have identified a need that SRv6+ satisfies and SRv6 does not So, why would anyone want to suppress the new work. I have heard the following arguments: 1. New work would overtax the WG 2. A new solution would confuse the market place The first argument is dubious. We are talking about a few very short documents that are careful never to stray from IPv6 orthodoxy. As always, participation is voluntary. The second argument is downright suspicious. Network operators are intelligent people who are not easily confused. The marketplace doesn't need to be protected from new solutions. Those who claim that it does may want to explain why. Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 8:59 AM To: Sander Steffann <san...@steffann.nl>; Zafar Ali (zali) <z...@cisco.com> Cc: Rob Shakir <ro...@google.com>; Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>; Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net>; Andrew Alston <andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com> Subject: RE: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.) I don't think anyone is trying to make themselves look superior. Presumably the IETF wants to build technologies that are actually deployed in real networks - it is clear that there are multiple publicly announced SRv6 deployments (I can think of at least 5) and from what I can see from the numerous email threads there are several operators stating that SRv6 satisfies their needs (and this is based on real deployment knowledge not theoretical technical purity) and no other additional encapsulation technique is necessary.. My .2c Jim From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Sander Steffann Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2019 1:22 PM To: Zafar Ali (zali) <z...@cisco.com<mailto:z...@cisco.com>> Cc: Rob Shakir <ro...@google.com<mailto:ro...@google.com>>; Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net<mailto:rbon...@juniper.net>>; SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>>; Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net<mailto:shrad...@juniper.net>>; Andrew Alston <andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>> Subject: Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.) [ZA] Please refer to section 3 of SRv6 deployment draft, https://tools.ietf..org/html/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-01#section-3<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Ftools.ietf.org*2Fhtml*2Fdraft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-01*23section-3&data=02*7C01*7Cjames.n.guichard*40futurewei.com*7C87bab78edf0e4c4d22d108d733b7f0b8*7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc*7C1*7C0*7C637034737431602731&sdata=rfo13CsN3LjWzPWDzGUE48kvRjrnXEbzIHc7obLm144*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!8WoA6RjC81c!Up-MQ72jYBIy0LIFVE2tWj_0zcRvGuDpgNHRAGB4ndHJNrus8njuNkSZtEwCiYcm$>. It provides some details on the Significant industry collaboration that led to SRv6 standardization. SRv6 standardization went through the rigorous IETF process (some may say much more rigorous than typically done at IETF). Throwing massive resources at something, sending many emails and creating many tickets don't represent "significant industry collaboration". They can equally represent ratholing, endless discussions and massive disagreement. Stop trying to make yourself look superior. That has no place in the IETF. Statement like that are pathetic in my view. Please focus on technical excellence instead. Cheers, Sander
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring