“Should the working group standardize one data plane behavior for compressing SRv6 information?”
Yes, only one data plane behavior as standards track document. As discussed, there are precedents in other WGs for similar processes and standardizing on a single data plane solution helped move forward. Thanks. Jorge From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> Date: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 11:52 AM To: spring@ietf.org <spring@ietf.org> Subject: [spring] Progressing Standardizing SR over IPv6 compression The SPRING Working Group Chairs thank the design team for their efforts on the requirements and analysis drafts. The question of how the working group wants to progress that part of the work will be the topic for a separate email a bit later. Right now, we are hearing the discussion about how many solutions, and the perspectives being expressed. While the topic was well-raised, the discussion to date has not been structured in a way that makes clear to everyone what the purpose is. In particular, the chairs have decided to re-ask the question. We ask that even those who have responded in the discussion respond to this thread. Preferably with both what their opinion is and an explanation of why. The question we are asking you to comment on is: Should the working group standardize one data plane behavior for compressing SRv6 information? Please speak up. We are looking to collect responses until close of business PDT on 20-August-2021. Thank you, Joel, Jim, and Bruno _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
