I agree this issue can be closed as well. Thanks
Gyan On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 9:31 PM Joel Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > As mentioned earlier, we also need to confirm the resolution of issue #2 > on the subject document. > > This call will run for 1 week. Please speak up if you either support > closing this issue or see aspects that need further discussion or different > resolution. > > Issue 2 reads: > > 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. > The document currently being looked at for this is > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-krishnan-6man-sids > > The editors' response reads: > > draft-ietf-6man-sids addresses this issue and it has been WG Last Called > by 6man. > > Thank you, > > Joel > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>* *M 301 502-1347*
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
