On 6/12/19 22:15, Brian E Carpenter wrote: [...] > >> and if such a thing is required, an update to RFC8200 should be done. > > Why does that follow? Alternatively, > draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming could acknowledge that it deviates > from RFC8200.
You can deviate from s "should", not from a "must". This is an outright violation of a spec, rather than a mere "deviation". > Whether that's acceptable would be a question for the IETF Last Call rather > than any single WG. I would expect that a WG cannot ship a document that is violating an existing spec, where the wg shipping the document is not in a position of making decisions regarding the spec being violated. That would be like a waste of energy and time for all. > At the moment, the draft only mentions RFC8200 in a context that discusses > neither insertion nor removal of extension headers, which is beside the > point. Like draft-voyer, if it describes a violation of RFC8200, shouldn't > that be explicit in the text? > > There's a lot of jargon in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming. I > can't tell from the jargon whether "insert" means "insert on the fly" and > whether "Pop the SRH" means "delete on the fly". Should those terms be > clarified before the draft advances? Well, if it's not clear to you, it would seem to me that the simple answer would be "yes". -- 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
