Hi Alvaro, Bruno, Joel, WG, and authors, I support the adoption call. However, I believe the document should be “informational.”
I have a comment on the section 7.1.1: The Section is not specific to SRv6 compression (CSID draft). RFC 8754 and RFC 8986 define reduced SRH, i.e., SRH MAY be omitted when the SRv6 Policy only contains one segment (typical for VPN Cases without TE). Thanks Regards … Zafar From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, August 8, 2024 at 11:47 AM To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> Cc: draft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-secur...@ietf.org <draft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-secur...@ietf.org>, spring-cha...@ietf.org <spring-cha...@ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org> Subject: [spring] Re: WG Adoption Call for draft-bdmgct-spring-srv6-security (ends Aug/19) On August 7, 2024 at 3:07:12 PM, Yingzhen Qu wrote: Hi! > The current intended status of this document is "Standards Track", is this > intentional? Yes, it is. The document is intended to be a "companion" to the existing documents. However, the status is not "written in stone": it can be changed if the WG decides it should be something else. Do you have thoughts about that? Thanks! Alvaro. _______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org
