Hello Joel,
I want to make note of two suggestions, I’m copying the list for record keeping only. 1 – The second bullet (beginning with “As reminded”) should include the link to the questions asked of the 6man chairs/ADs https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/merG-RgtA3shloDqpyRk-xWHniw/ and their response https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/z_3nbdwVQ_V66ZqkV-ZhIg7kakA/<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3k8_1JgKGtnLsfsVf65qvReNuLc/> 2 – About the requirements for a document identifying the “relationship of C-SIDs with RFC 4291.”. The word “C-SIDs” should be changed to “SRv6 SIDs” in the sentences when such a document is discussed. This would better match the 6man chairs/ADs response: “To summarize: we do not object to C-SID behavior work continuing in SPRING, we simply need a clarifying document described in [A].” And “[A] A separate 6MAN document to clarify and categorize SRv6 SIDs is needed.” Thanks Darren On 2021-10-31, 11:37 AM, "spring" <[email protected]> wrote: With apologies to the working group for the delay, this email formally ends the adoption call that was announced at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/-tvDZ5biRXvfLlyJ8IMtX-7EUp4/ for draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression The conclusion is somewhat unusual, so please read carefully. First, let me thank all of the working group participants for their active and energetic participation in this call. That is what we need. In terms of the rough consensus of the feedback we received, the rough consensus of the working group is that we should adopt this document. Due to process concerns, I am placing two caveats on this adoption, one of which can be easily dealt with by the authors, and one of which will cause some delay. The SPRING working group chairs sent a policy statement last March https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/vCc9Ckvwu5HA-RCleV712dsA5OA/ which calls attention to the issue of conflict between working group efforts and existing PS or BCP RFCs. This policy applies to the subject document. It is my judgment that the issues raised regarding whether this work complies with RFC 4291 require adherence to this policy. As such, we need a draft in front of 6man (the responsible working group for RFC 4291) that addresses the raised disconnect. fortunately, we have been told that the 6man chairs and area directors are appointing authors for just such a document to address the issue of the relationship of C-SIDs with RFC 4291. Therefore, I will not be approving posting of the working group draft until the author team has posted an initial take for 6man consumption of such a draft. Once they have posted that draft, I will approve posting of a working group ID with the addition according to the next caveat. As per the statement in the adoption call, as part of adoption the document is required to have a section (an appendix seems the most appropriate, but placement will be up to the editors) on open issues. As there is a lot of controversy about the open issues, and about how to describe them, I am providing text (below) for that section. Once the draft is posted as a working group draft, the working group will of course own the text, and WG rough consensus can change the text. Also, once we have a WG draft I will arrange to get an issue tracker to make sure we keep track of all the issues, not just the major ones in the open issues section of the document. Expected text on Open Issues: Open Issues: Issues raised during and after the adoption call for this draft are tracked in an issue tracker. The remainder of this section identifies the most significant open issues, from the adoption call, for the working group to keep track of. As a reminder to those reading this section, this document is a work in progress, and subject to change by the working group. As noted at the front of this document, "It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material" o 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. o As reminded in the conclusion of the adoption call, this document is subject to the policy announced by the SPRING chairs in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/vCc9Ckvwu5HA-RCleV712dsA5OA/. In particular, this means that this document can not go to WG last call until 6man completes handling of an Internet Draft that deals with the relationship of C-SIDs to RFC 4291. It is hoped and expected that said resolution will be a WG last call and document approval in 6man of a document providing for the way that C-SIDs use the IPv6 destination address field. _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
