Hi Sander, Just one comment below ..
-----Original Message----- From: Sander Steffann <san...@steffann.nl> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 11:49 AM To: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> Cc: Voyer, Daniel <daniel.vo...@bell.ca>; Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>; SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>; Andrew Alston <andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>; James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>; Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net>; Rob Shakir <ro...@google.com>; Zafar Ali (zali) <z...@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [spring] Going back to the original question for the Spring WG (was: Re: Beyond SRv6.) > But IETF mission is to make sure you have interoperable services and so far > for all SRv6+ related draft this is all single vendor. Sorry but linux code > does not count. And Cisco is doing exactly the same. I'm just happy that finally someone is standing up to Cisco in this. I *know* the SRv6+ people have suggested working on interop. Cisco is the one who refused! So don't come to me with this "IETF mission is to make sure you have interoperable services" BS. Jim> this is not an accurate statement as there are vendors other than Cisco that have a deployable and interoperable implementation of SRv6. _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
