Hello everyone,
as I see it, the document fits well into the framework of RFC8986, it
solved the problem, and does so in an efficient manner. Thus I support
the adoption of this document.
Best rergards, Martin
Am 01.10.21 um 16:04 schrieb James Guichard:
Dear WG:
The chairs would like to express their appreciation for all the
responses received to our emails with reference to how the working group
wishes to move forward with respect to a solution for SRv6 compression.
The apparent inclination of the working group is to use
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/>
as the basis for its compression standardization work. That is part of
what this email attempts to confirm.
Because of the above the chairs would like to issue a 2-week WG call for
adoption ending October 15^th for
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/>
but with some clear guidelines as follows. By expressing support for
adoption of this document you are fully aware of and are acknowledging
that:
1. The SPRING working group is adopting a document that has multiple
SRv6 Endpoint behaviors.
2. The document is a “living” document; it may change as it goes
through review and analysis by the SPRING working group.
3. All open discussion points raised on our mailing list MUST be
addressed BEFORE said document is allowed to progress from the
working group to publication. A list of these discussion points will
be documented in the WG document and maintained by the document
editor in conjunction with the chairs.
4. If this document is adopted by the working group, the chairs specify
as part of the adoption call that the following text describing an
open issue be added to the document in the above-described open
issues section:
* "Given that the working group has said that it wants to
standardize one data plane solution, and given that the document
contains multiple SRv6 EndPoint behaviors that some WG members
have stated are multiple data plane solutions, the working group
will address whether this is valid and coherent with its one
data plane solution objective.".
Please consider the above guidelines as you decide on whether to support
or not this WG adoption. Please express clearly your reasoning for
support/non-support as well as any open discussion points you would like
addressed should the document be adopted into the working group.
Thanks!
Jim, Bruno & Joel
_______________________________________________
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
