Thanks Darren! On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 1:23 PM Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes= [email protected]> wrote:
> Was: Re: [spring] > draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02#section-4.1.1 > > > > I’m sending this note to redirect this question to the srcomp DT for an > editorial fix, when the team meets next. > > > > For the DT: > > Each proposal, introduced in section 1, discusses how it supports 16-bit > and 32-bit SIDs. However, Gyan’s question indicates this could be more > clearly stated in the analysis draft to help readers less familiar with a > proposal. As such, section 1 can be improved accordingly. > > > > Darren > > > > On 2021-09-24, 1:32 PM, "spring" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Gyan, > > > > You raise a very good point. In the analysis document, Tables 1 through 6 > and Tables 12 through 15 each contain only one column for the CSID. They do > not indicate whether the number in that column were calculated using the > NEXT-C-SID, REPLACE-C-SID, or NEXT-AND-REPLACE-C-SID. (That is, the do not > indicate whether they were calculated using uSID, G-SID, or a combination > of both). > > > > Each of these tables should be modified, so that the CSID column is > replaced by three columns (NEXT-C-SID, REPLACE-C-SID, and > NEXT-AND-REPLACE-C-SID). > > > > If the numbers in these columns are different from one another, this may > inform our discussion about whether NEXT-C-SID, REPLACE-C-SID, and > NEXT-AND-REPLACE-C-SID are different behaviors or different flavors of a > behavior. > > > > > Ron > > > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > *From:* spring <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Gyan Mishra > *Sent:* Friday, September 24, 2021 9:56 AM > *To:* SPRING WG <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; > [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [spring] > draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02#section-4.1.1 > > > > *[External Email. Be cautious of content]* > > > > Dear Spring Authors > > > > Please respond to this question the WG has related to which of the three > SRv6 forwarding mechanisms called flavors was inclusive of the compression > analysis draft. > > > > The Analysis draft is ambiguous as to which SRv6 forwarding plane flavor > was part of the analysis. > > > > This is a critical question that has come up by the WG and Chairs, and > answering this question will help pave the way to an adoption call for > C-SID. > > > > Kind Regards > > > > Gyan > > > > On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 3:33 PM Gyan Mishra <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Authors > > > > After having a few discussions on threads related to the SRv6 compression > analysis draft results, as well as WG coming to consensus on a single SRv6 > compression solution, a few critical questions have come up related to > C-SID draft that requires clarification by the authors. > > > > The C-SID draft has 3 compression solutions below and is a combination of > the two drafts below which introduces 2 of the 3 compression solutions with > the C-SID draft introduction of yet a 3rd compression solution. > > > > Which of the 3 C-SID draft compression solutions was included as part of > the DT analysis draft results and conclusion? > > > > This is a critical question that needs to be answered for clarification on > the C-SID draft solution. > > > > As the WG has consensus on a single solution we need to have clarification > from the authors which of the 3 compression solutions was included in the > analysis. > > > > The three solutions are very different and all would yield different > analysis results. > > > > I understand the authors have called the each solution a endpoint flavor > which I see from the IANA codepoint allocations, however each flavor is a > different solution. > > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/segment-routing/segment-routing.xhtml > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.iana.org/assignments/segment-routing/segment-routing.xhtml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XJMCrXOtpr7xttMYGJp3u6tAqsuXrjU7AVELZIzIUxBfFYjzkcL6axEYZR-kW_YB$> > > > > So the WG as stated would like a single solution so now we need feedback > from the authors which of the three solutions or endpoint flavors was part > of the DT analysis draft that the authors would like to put forward as the > single compression solution. > > > > C-SID is a combination of the two drafts below: > > > > Combination of the two drafts below: > > > > G-SID - Generalized SID “REPLACE-C-SID” > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cl-spring-generalized-srv6-for-cmpr-03 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cl-spring-generalized-srv6-for-cmpr-03__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XJMCrXOtpr7xttMYGJp3u6tAqsuXrjU7AVELZIzIUxBfFYjzkcL6axEYZXk5kUTn$> > > > > SRv6 uSID micro-segment “ NEXT-C-SID” > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-10 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-10__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XJMCrXOtpr7xttMYGJp3u6tAqsuXrjU7AVELZIzIUxBfFYjzkcL6axEYZWozRCLY$> > > > > Kind Regards > > > > > > Gyan > > -- > > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.verizon.com/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XJMCrXOtpr7xttMYGJp3u6tAqsuXrjU7AVELZIzIUxBfFYjzkcL6axEYZVS6oNsY$> > > *Gyan Mishra* > > *Network Solutions Architect * > > *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* > > *M 301 502-1347* > > > > -- > > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.verizon.com/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XJMCrXOtpr7xttMYGJp3u6tAqsuXrjU7AVELZIzIUxBfFYjzkcL6axEYZVS6oNsY$> > > *Gyan Mishra* > > *Network Solutions Architect * > > *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* > > *M 301 502-1347* > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* *M 301 502-1347*
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
