I think we can close the issue 1, and I think it can be closed long time ago in the WG adoption not now.
Like the authors and contributors said, “All SIDs of the SRv6 dataplane (defined in this document and in other documents) can co-exist in the same SRH. This make SRv6 a single, consistent dataplane solution.” I agree with that, and I also remember most of the participants shared the same thoughts in WG adoption call. The flavors defined in the draft are the same with the PSP, USP, USD in RFC8986, nothing special. They can apply to the behaviors in the same way. Nobody will say that there are 3 data planes in RFC8986 because of PSP, USP, USD. If you believe so, then we will have 39 data planes in RFC8986 because 39 behaviors are defined in it, and they are different for sure. I think the authors have done a great job to get consensus among a lot of people, so we can see a good document with a lot of supports from different companies, and a lot of implementations, interop tests, and deployments from ALL(?) vendors and operators. With this wide range support, I support the draft to go to WGLC and RFC publication ASAP to meet the requirements of fast commercial deployment. Thanks, Cheng From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Joel Halpern Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 5:09 AM To: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org> Subject: [spring] Issue 1 regarding draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression As per the discussions on list and at IETF 117, the SPRING WG chairs (myself and Alvaro specifically) are attempting to determine if we can close the open issues regarding https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression/ The editors have entered proposed resolutions for all open issues. This email is to determine if the working group considers issue 1 closable. Issue 1 reads: 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. The editors have entered: All SIDs of the SRv6 dataplane (defined in this document and in other documents) can co-exist in the same SRH. This make SRv6 a single, consistent dataplane solution. Please speak up if you agree this resolves this issue, or if you consider that it does not resolve the issue. Objections (and even support if practical) should be specific as to the technical grounds for the statement. Silence will not be considered consent. This call will run for 3 weeks to allow time for at least some people's August vacations and in hopes fo getting a clear reading from the WG. Separate calls for other issues will be issued on a schedule that the chairs have selected to try to balance getting sufficient focus with getting this done, as it has been a long time. Note that if the WG agrees that all issues may be marked as closed, the chairs anticipate issuing the WG last call shortly after that is determined. Speaking up early will help us in all dimensions. If we determine that not all issues can be marked as closed, the chairs will work with the document editors to determine suitable next steps. Thank you, Joel
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
