On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 6:26 AM Andrew Alston <andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
> 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 > +1 > 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. > That's already happened. SRH has reinvented both protocol options, TLVs, in the network layer, as well as header authentication. Tom > > > Didn’t think so…. > > > > Andrew > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > i...@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
