Are you a member of the IESG? On Thu, 28 May 2020, 08:33 Zafar Ali (zali), <zali= [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > > > The authors of CRH has already have multiple drafts and more CP/ DP > changes will be required. E.g., it will require > > - ISIS changes (draft-bonica-lsr-crh-isis-extensions) > - To carry VPN information (draft-bonica-6man-vpn-dest-opt) > - For SFC (draft-bonica-6man-seg-end-opt) > - BGP changes (draft-alston-spring-crh-bgp-signalling, > draft-ssangli-idr-bgp-vpn-srv6-plus) > - PCEP extension (TBA) > - OAM for debugging the mapping table > - Yang interface > - More to come > > > > The scope of CRH is “limited domain” and not the “Internet”. > > > > Given this, where the IETF community discuss how these so-called “building > blocks” fits together? > > > > If author’s claim is that the home for the architecture work is not > Spring, then the authors should create a BoF in routing area to first > defined architecture, use-case and requirements. > > This is the hard worked everyone else did before the CRH authors. > > Why they are looking for a short cut? > > > > CRH is a “major” change and outside the scope of 6man charter. > > It should follow the proper IETF review process. > > > > Why CRH authors are trying to “skip the queue” and “skip the routing > area”? > > > > Thanks > > > > Regards … Zafar > > > > *From: *ipv6 <[email protected]> on behalf of Brian E Carpenter < > [email protected]> > *Date: *Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 6:09 PM > *To: *Robert Raszuk <[email protected]>, Andrew Alston < > [email protected]> > *Cc: *Ron Bonica <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]>, 6man <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: > [spring] CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint > option? > > > > On 28-May-20 09:50, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > Andrew, > > > > I don't think this is about killing innovation. After all no one is saying > you can not use it in your network. > > > > WG acceptance calls > > > > Adoption is not acceptance. At least half the messages on this topic are > written as if we were in the middle of a WG Last Call. > > > > are evaluated in terms of WG rough consensu if significant number of > members of WG find a proposal useful and if they are willing to work on it. > > > > Indeed. Exactly. Not in the least about consensus that the proposal is > ready for approval. Just that it is ready for discussion and, as you say, > that there are people willing to work on it. > > > > It seems clear that other then one vendor and very few individuals > majority of the WG members do not support the adoption. > > > > That's for the WG Chairs to evaluate, and I expect them to evaluate > singing in chorus appropriately. Also, and this is not a grammatical > quibble, we don't have "members". We have participants, and we don't count > votes. > > > > I am not against CRH. But what I am against is that CRH/SRm6 authors > already bounced back via SPRING doors so they have chosen to try to enter > via 6man window. That is not proper style for any proposal. > > > > I agree that CRH is not in scope of the SPRING charter as it stands today > ("the home of Segment Routing (SR) using MPLS (SR-MPLS) and IPv6 (SRv6)").. > But let me say again that we should hear the opinion of the routing ADs. > > > > Regards > > Brian > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > [email protected] > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
