Pablo,
Ae you sure? Please look at the question as Joel asked it (
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/nS2gnQ_jxvpbmcxs_d3JAbUCT1I/ ).
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 2:58 PM
To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>; James Guichard
<[email protected]>; SPRING WG <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: WG Adoption call for
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Ron,
I believe your statement is wrong. The WG has expressed strong preference for a
single data plane solution.
From the chairs emails:
“Given that the working group has said that it wants to standardize one data
plane solution …”
“There is a rough (quite clear) consensus for standardizing one dataplane
solution…”
I hope we all agree that RFC8986 is not defining 36 different dataplane
solutions. 😉
Cheers,
Pablo.
From: Ron Bonica
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: martes, 5 de octubre de 2021 17:38
To: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;
James Guichard
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; SPRING
WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: WG Adoption call for
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/
Pablo,
The WG has expressed a strong preference for having a single compression
*behavior*. Why is it OK to ignore that preference because RFC 8986 has 36
different behaviors?
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On
Behalf Of Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 1:32 PM
To: James Guichard
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; SPRING
WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption call for
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XFki7y49hq-_1n9wivZdbA_IuaMQ3UTYwF-IRESDd-5OL-dV-ZwAUUkScxGGLS_d$>
RFC8986 already defines 36 different behaviors.
This document, CSID, is a single SRv6-based solution that only defines
additional behaviors with the next and replace flavors.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
