<snip> >> Please elaborate about the real deployment. Where was it deployed? In what >> kind of networks? On what scale? For which use cases? > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-01<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status-01> > >> I don't like the design of the current solution, and you seem to suggest >> that I have to stall work on what I would like until you have what you would >> like *. That doesn't work for me. >
I kinda have my own issues with a draft like the one referenced – since – in my view – within the IETF – we create technical documents – that either document a standard, or an experimental technology/protocol, or document particular use cases and information related to that. This draft in my view – doesn’t really fit into any of that. To be entirely blunt, I fail to see why we are adopting documents that are nothing more than marketing spin for a particular protocol or set of protocols. If a protocol or standard has a use case within operators – then let the operators state their case and bring people towards the standard for solid technical base, rather than creating a document that says “oh look some people are using this”. Furthermore – Much of the discussion of late has been around the network programming draft – and the insertion of headers – with some limited discussion on the uSID stuff. Reading this document – I see no reference to either – the document seems to be pretty specific to SRH – which does not even sit within the spring working group – but rather in the 6man working group. Hence, I find this whole document rather bizarre. But – that’s just my 2c Andrew
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
