Hi Authors, thanks for the update of your draft, to clarify the proposed mechanism of redundancy protection.
I have concerns regarding this draft as (1) the SRv6 approach does not follow the DetNet architecture, and (2) repeats functionalities that are provided by the DetNet service sub-layer but with serious limitations. (1) DetNet has defined two sub-layers: the service sub-layer and the forwarding sub-layer. The service sub-layer is responsible for service protection and the forwarding sub-layer provides forwarding paths and resource allocation on top of them for the DetNet flows. DetNet specifications allow to use any technology in the forwarding sub-layer, including Segment Routing. The SRv6 approach described in "draft-geng-spring-sr-redundancy-protection" breaks the clear concept of the sub-layers by mixing them up. It contradicts to several points at least to RFC8655 (DetNet Architecture), RFC8938 (Data Plane Framework) and RFC8964 (DetNet MPLS Data Plane). (2) The motivation for "draft-geng-spring-sr-redundancy-protection" is not clear especially as the SRv6 approach seems to be repeating DetNet service sub-layer functionalities; however, with a limited set of functionalities without any clear benefits. Cheers Bala'zs
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
