Dear all,
I support the adoption of this draft.
I am Marco Bonola, senior researcher at CNIT (Italy), and I have
recently worked on the SRv6 dataplane in the context of SmartNIC and
in-Kernel acceleration. The new flavor designed in this draft compiles
with the SRv6 dataplane and can be implemented on top of it, as other
flavors defined in RFC8986.
Kind regards
Marco
On 01/10/21 16:04, James Guichard wrote:
Dear WG:
The chairs would like to express their appreciation for all the
responses received to our emails with reference to how the working
group wishes to move forward with respect to a solution for SRv6
compression.
The apparent inclination of the working group is to use
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/
as the basis for its compression standardization work. That is part of
what this email attempts to confirm.
Because of the above the chairs would like to issue a 2-week WG call
for adoption ending October 15^th for
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/
but with some clear guidelines as follows. By expressing support for
adoption of this document you are fully aware of and are acknowledging
that:
1. The SPRING working group is adopting a document that has multiple
SRv6 Endpoint behaviors.
2. The document is a “living” document; it may change as it goes
through review and analysis by the SPRING working group.
3. All open discussion points raised on our mailing list MUST be
addressed BEFORE said document is allowed to progress from the
working group to publication. A list of these discussion points
will be documented in the WG document and maintained by the
document editor in conjunction with the chairs.
4. If this document is adopted by the working group, the chairs
specify as part of the adoption call that the following text
describing an open issue be added to the document in the
above-described open issues section:
* "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.".
Please consider the above guidelines as you decide on whether to
support or not this WG adoption. Please express clearly your reasoning
for support/non-support as well as any open discussion points you
would like addressed should the document be adopted into the working
group.
Thanks!
Jim, Bruno & Joel
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
