Having gotten various volunteers, and considered what the WG needs, the
SPRING chairs have selected the design team for clarifying the SR over
IPv6 compression situation.
The Design team will be
Co-Chaired by:
Cheng Weiqiang of China Mobile and
Sanders Steffann of SJM Steffann Consultancy
The other members of the team are:
Ron Bonica of Juniper
Darren Dukes of Cisco
Cheng Li of Huawei
Peng Shaofu of ZTE
Wim Henderickx of Nokia
Chongfeng Xie of China Telecom
(We understand that some members may be on vacation. We ask the chairs
to please get the design team up and running as fast as possible, and
deal with vacations as necessary.)
The design team is to produce (rough) consensus (of the DT) outputs to
the WG on two related topics:
1) What are the requirements for solutions to compressing segment
routing information for use over IPv6;
2) A comparison of proposed approaches to compressing segment routing
information for use over IPv6.
In both cases, assertions / requirements should be explicitly explained
and motivated. Please do not assume that everyone has the same
perspective or assumptions.
We expect these results to take the form of Internet Drafts. How the
design team does the development is up to them. Note that while we are
asking for I-Ds, we are not assuming that these results will be
published as RFCs. When the working group has progressed, we will see
if there is agreement as to the value of long term publication of this
material.
Also, as a reminder to both the design team and the working group, the
design team output is input to the working group. It is not presumed to
be a WG document until the WG actually adopts it.
If the design team has insights into the number of solutions (are
several already standardized? is there value in picking one / some?)
this may be included in the requirements readout. If the design team
can not agree, or does not think it is helpful to report this aspect,
that is also acceptable to the chairs.
While the chairs would like to see prompt work, we also want to see a
thorough job done on this task. As such, we value quality of result
over time. While there is some pressure, we ask that the design team
focus on reaching clear and useful agreements. Thus, we are not asking
for any readout by IETF 108. As a target, we would like to see a draft
to the WG by September 15, 2020.
If the design team makes enough progress that they have questions they
would like the WG to discuss at IETF 108, please let us know.
Yours,
Bruno, Jim, and Joel
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
