Hi Chairs， I fully agree with the CSID authors opinions below.
It is definitely not a easy topic as it take such a long time to get a consensus version. Thank the authors for their hard working！ I agree that 2 flavors are not equal to 2 dataplane，different flavors are all based on the same SRv6 dataplane（one dateplane）. The current version could be called as one solution. Considering the huge progress we have achieved，it seems 100% ready to step forward ASAP. Best Regards， Zhen HAN (Fiberhome) *发件人：* Weiqiang Cheng <[email protected]> *发送时间：* 2021-09-08 11:25 *收件人：* 'Joel M. Halpern' <[email protected]>; [email protected] *主题：* Re: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6 Dear Chairs, Many thanks for your hard working. We are happy to see that the CSID draft has significant interest to be adopted as a WG document. Regarding the dataplane, the authors believe that the CSID draft contains only one dataplane solution with two different flavors[1]: NEXT-CSID-FLAVOR and REPLACE-CSID-FLAVOR, rather than two dataplane solutions. Both the flavors are defined based on the SRv6 data plane(one data plane), and the SIDs with these two flavors can be encoded in a single SRH just like we can encode PSP Flavor SIDs and USD flavor SIDs together in a SRH. The inter-op test of CSIDs had been done almost one year ago[2], and everything was OK. Furthermore, the mechanism defined in the draft has been stable and mature. With the consensus, the authors hope WG can consider to adopt the CSID draft. Best regards, Weiqiang on behalf of CSID authors [1]. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8986#section-4.16 [2]. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-co mpression-02#section-11 -----邮件原件----- 发件人: spring [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Joel M. Halpern 发送时间: 2021年9月7日 01:27 收件人: [email protected] 主题: [spring] Conclusion from WG poll on dataplane solution for compressing segment routing over IPv6 Our thanks to the working group members for speaking up clearly. There is a rough (quite clear) consensus for standardizing one dataplane solution to compressing segment routing over IPv6. As chairs, there are some related observations we need to make. There appears to be significant interest in using the framework in the CSID draft for addressing the above. However, before we issue a call for adoption on that, the chairs would like to understand how the working group wants to solve a technical problem. The CSID draft contains two dataplane solutions. The above rough consensus is for one dataplane solution. Does the working group want to choose one? Do the authors want to suggest that one of the two is the one we should standardize, and get working group agreement? Should we adopt the document, with a note indicating the problem, and solve the problem afterwards? (That itself does not solve the problem, it merely kicks it down the road.) Do folks see another means to avoid putting the WG in conflict with itself? As a loosely related side node, the chairs will also observe that we do not see an obstacle to informational or experimental publication of other solutions, as long as there is sufficient energy in the working group to deal with those. Also, only documents for which there is at least one implementation will be progressed this way. Thank you, Bruno, Jim, and Joel _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
