Hi Spring WG On the basis of the below – I must conclude that the issues relating the SID/IPv6 semantics have indeed not been dealt with by the spring working group in the context of the network programming draft – and I would now like to raise those issues in the context of that draft – and the fact that draft-ietf-spring-network-programming violates the address semantic specifications of RFC4291.
Can we please have a proper discussion on this Thanks Andrew From: "Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddu...@cisco.com> Date: Wednesday, 11 March 2020 at 22:03 To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> Cc: Andrew Alston <andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>, 6man WG <i...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26 violating RFC4291, IPv6 Addressing Architecture? Hi Ron, I made no comment in this thread on draft-ietf-spring-network-programming. Darren On Mar 11, 2020, at 2:55 PM, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Darren, Didn’t we agree to close issue 66 because draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing header contains no text regarding SID/IPv6 address semantics. If that’s the case, how can you say that closing issue 66 implies WG consensus around SID/IPv6 address semantic proposed in draft-ietf-6man-network-programming? Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: ipv6 <ipv6-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Darren Dukes (ddukes) Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 12:07 PM To: ext-andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:ext-andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com> <andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>> Cc: 6man WG <i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-26 violating RFC4291, IPv6 Addressing Architecture? Hi Andrew please see issue #66 for the closure record. https://trac.ietf.org/trac/6man/ticket/66<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trac.ietf.org/trac/6man/ticket/66__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!RN-QFuaCraX6vU74Vusek5FlDyBGgfC2Teh1Vz40nw0PBhWdPtA-SA3t_rxaFg4_$> Darren On Mar 9, 2020, at 3:18 PM, Andrew Alston <andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>> wrote: Hi Darren > Hi Mark, the working group discussed the > association with RFC4291 and closed it with > the text in the document. Can we get a reference to these discussions please - would just be useful to back and refresh memories and wasn’t able to find them Thanks Andrew
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
