Hi Chair and WG,
I support the adoption of this draft. I agree with that different solutions suit for different application scenarios. I think the authors can distinguish this more in the draft if necessary. Best, Libin From: Yingzhen Qu [mailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2024 3:30 AM To: RTGWG; spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org>; rtgwg-chairs; draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection Subject: WG Adoption Call - draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection (02/09/24 - 02/24/24) Hi, This email begins a 2 week WG adoption poll for the following draft: draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection-05 - SRv6 Egress Protection in Multi-homed scenario (ietf.org)<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection/> Please review the document and indicate your support or objections by Feb 24th, 2024. Please note that there is an existing WG document:draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-16 - SRv6 Path Egress Protection<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection/> Which proposes fast protections for the egress node and link of an SRv6 path through extending IGP and using Mirror SID. As you discuss adopting draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection, please also consider: * Do we need these different solutions? * Technical merits and drawbacks of each solution * If there is any implementation of the proposals, please voice it. Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any IPR that applies to the draft. Also copying SPRING WG. Thanks, Yingzhen (RTGWG Co-chair)
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
