Ole,
Point taken. Could you comment on the current state of WG consensus?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
-----Original Message-----
From: otr...@employees.org <otr...@employees.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 3:57 PM
To: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>
Cc: Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddu...@cisco.com>; SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>; 6man
<6...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping
Ron,
> Currently, there is no consensus that IPv6 allows insertion of extension
> headers by intermediate nodes, even if those intermediate nodes are segment
> endpoints . Given this lack of consensus, the authors of network programming
> have wisely agreed to remove header insertion from the draft.
>
> Likewise, there is no consensus that IPv6 allows removal of extension headers
> by intermediate nodes, even if those intermediate nodes are segment
> endpoints. Why, then, have the authors of network programming not agreed to
> remove PSP from the draft?
With regards to working group process; may I gently remind you that it is the
chairs that call consensus.
Best regards,
Ole
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
