Dear chairs & WG,
> Our thanks to the working group members for speaking up clearly. There is a > rough (quite clear) consensus for standardizing one dataplane solution to > compressing segment routing over IPv6. I’m very pleased that we’ve found the courage to say that we want to make a decision. > As chairs, there are some related observations we need to make. > There appears to be significant interest in using the framework in the CSID > draft for addressing the above. I concur that there is interest in CSID. However, as we have not yet done a consensus check to select the specific proposal, I hope that this is not your assertion that CSID is the result. This is a major decision by the WG and it does deserve a formal and explicit check. > However, before we issue a call for adoption on that, the chairs would like > to understand how the working group wants to solve a technical problem. The > CSID draft contains two dataplane solutions. The above rough consensus is > for one dataplane solution. Does the working group want to choose one? Do > the authors want to suggest that one of the two is the one we should > standardize, and get working group agreement? > Should we adopt the document, with a note indicating the problem, and solve > the problem afterwards? (That itself does not solve the problem, it merely > kicks it down the road.) Do folks see another means to avoid putting the WG > in conflict with itself? If the authors of the CSID proposal, or any proposal, would like to revise their proposals before we make a selection, this would seem to be an opportune time. Tony _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
