Pablo & IESG,
May I ask why, if you are going against RFC8754, you do it in this
documents as opposed to formally update RFC8754?
Put another way: what was the point of 6man (and eventually the IETF) of
standardizing RFC8754 if then this document is going to change the spec
without formally updating it?
Thanks,
Fernando
On 30/9/20 10:18, Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) wrote:
[....]
...
(1b) It would be nice if the behavior in §4.1.1 were also
specified using pseudocode. As written, I am not sure if the intent
is to process any upper-layer header or only specific ones. Is the
objective for this operation to be similar to the one in
§4.3.1.2/rfc8754? Please be specific on what is meant by "allowed
by local configuration".
[PC] Yes, we can structure the text in 4.1.1 in pseudocode form. The
[PC] processing is not the same as RFC8754/Section 4.3.1.2. The
“allowed by [PC] local configuration” is to enable the processing of
only specific types [PC] of Upper-layer Headers for packets addressed
to an SRv6 SID of the [PC] specific behaviors. E.g. An operator may
not wish to have BGP sessions [PC] (or in general any TCP traffic)
destined to a local SID, but may want to [PC] enable ICMPv6 packet
processing for OAM purposes.
[....]
--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [email protected] || [email protected]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [email protected] || [email protected]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
