Figured I'd add to this - as I continued to read the charter SPRING WG should avoid modification to existing data planes that would make them incompatible with existing deployments. Where possible, existing control and management plane protocols must be used within existing architectures to implement the SPRING function. Any modification of -or extension to- existing architectures, data planes, or control or management plane protocols should be carried out in the WGs responsible for the architecture, data plane, or control or management plane protocol being modified and in coordination with the SPRING WG, but may be done in SPRING WG after agreement with all the relevant WG chairs and responsible Area Directors.
If SRv6 is not IPv6 - as is the contention - (which in my view is an absolutely false contention designed to step around a specification because it simply doesn't suite what you want) - well - then what exactly are we doing here - because by that claim - we are inventing a new control plane, a new data plane, and well, it's a new protocol - so - do we have the agreement of the relevant WG chairs, Area Directors etc - to invent an entirely new everything. Didn't think so.... Andrew
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
