On October 12, 2023 at 11:37:01 PM, 姜文颖 wrote:
WenYing: Hi! > We received the similar comments before IETF 107 [1] and the authors of both > drafts had worked together to resolve it in the latest version. We has > clarified the scope in draft-cheng and has changed the name of the draft to > "draft-cheng-spring-srv6-policy-resource-guarantee" to better differentiate > the two drafts. The authors of both drafts have reached a consensus and > recommend that WG proceed with them separately. Consensus needs to be reached within the WG, not between authors. This thread is precisely so the WG Chairs can determine what the WG considers the best path forward. The scope and new name didn't help me with my questions: "Is this document an instantiation of a use case already covered by I-D.ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments, or is it a new application? Do we need this new extension, or is I-D.ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments enough? Why do we need a separate document? Should the use case defined here be part of the already adopted document?" I expect to hear technical arguments that clarify the relationship and justify having a separate document. I also expect other WG participants (not just the authors) to express their opinions. > The main differences are as follows： > > Draft #1 draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments > > This draft extends the SR paradigm by associating SIDs with network resource > attributes，and specific behaviors and actual application application > scenarios are not defined. > > > Draft #2 draft-cheng-spring-srv6-policy-resource-gurantee > > Based on draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments，This draft further defines > specific behaviors, and actual application application scenarios for End.NRP > behavior. This draft can provide guidance when deploying. The SRv6 END.NRP > functional mechanism has a running code, and China Mobile has completed the > verification of this function. Based on this characterization, let me ask for a little more detail (related to the original questions): - draft-cheng-spring-srv6-policy-resource-gurantee "draft further defines specific behaviors, and actual application", so it is not defining a new concept -- it is providing additional details (behaviors/applications) not present in draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments. Is this a correct assessment? - draft-cheng-spring-srv6-policy-resource-gurantee defines a new behavior (END.NRP). Why is this new behavior needed? Why can't the same (or similar) result not be achieved using draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments (and existing behaviors)? - If the additional details are necessary, why do we need a separate document? IOW, why can't these details be added to draft-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segments? To be clear. Because this document is closely related to an already-adopted WG document, we (chairs) must be diligent about any overlap. That is the primary purpose of these questions, given that you asked for adoption. Even though this document is far from needing an Implementation Description [1], please add text to the draft describing the existing code. Note that existing code does not guarantee adoption. Thanks! Alvaro. [1] https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/spring/WG_Policies _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
