From my perspective the discussions as part of the adoption call in
SPRING, and the discussions in 6man make it clear that there is an issue
to be resolved. It may be that the issue will be resolved in saying
there is nothing that needs to be specified. It may be resolved by
saying that there are differences, and that they are acceptable. There
are many other ways that it may be resolved.
It is my job as chair, given the policy, to determine that there is an
apparent discrepancy that needs to be addressed. I have done so.
Yours,
Joel
On 10/31/2021 2:31 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
I am not attempting to revisit the question of whether RFC 8986
complies
with RFC 4191.
This compression documents raises additional issues beyond those in
8986
in some aspects of the flavors it describes.
Could you be so kind and enumerate where in the draft you see *anything*
crossing the line by defining new semantics for the ARG part of the SID
as defined in RFC8986 ?
Hint: your argument could have been sustainable if RFC8986 would put
additional restrictions on the ARG field. But it does not.
Many thx,
Robert
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
