Zafar,
can you confirm that if Router A in one domain uses next-c-sid and
Router B in another domain uses replace-c-sid, that they will be able to
interoperate? I'm not picking this up from the draft, and this would be
the overriding operational consideration in terms of what a single data
plane solution ought to look like in the wild.
Nick
Zafar Ali (zali) wrote on 08/08/2023 06:48:
Dear WG chairs and the WG,
I agree thatthis resolves the issue 1;it is a single data plane
solution compliant with the specifications in [RFC8402], [RFC8754] and
[RFC8986], aka SRv6 data plane.
Thanks
Regards … Zafar
*From: *spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Joel Halpern
<j...@joelhalpern.com>
*Date: *Monday, July 31, 2023 at 5:09 PM
*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
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
