Sorry – but – I’m a little confused here. Because the way I look at this – the working group clearly stated that they wished for a single behavior – and this – does not deliver that – it is two separate behaviors. As such – I see this call for adoption – irrespective of the merits or lack thereof of the draft, as a clear defiance of the stated will of the working group.
This is simply does not fit into the definition of bottom up approach in my opinion – and if this is the way that the chairs wish to proceed – then the only way to do that and still fit within the bottom up approach is to first ask this working group for its consensus to deviate from the single behacvior approach that the working group agreed to. As such – I must strongly and unequivocally object to this call for adoption Andrew From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> Date: Friday, 1 October 2021 at 17:05 To: SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org> Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org <spring-cha...@ietf.org> Subject: [spring] WG Adoption call for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/ 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/<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 15th for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/<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
