Hi All My foremost concern regarding the adoption to this draft relates to timing and progressing the call for adoption while there are several unaddressed and serious concerns that have been raised.
While the WG recently reached consensus around the adoption of one and only one data plane solution and we are already discussing solutions which require multiple data plane solutions, perhaps we need to consider that, while not ideal for some, having multiple data plane options provides us the best solution going forward. In this regard I believe it is important to note that all the compression mechanisms that have been proposed thus far make certain design decisions and are ultimately a compromise of flexibility, feature support, simplicity, etc. Is limiting ourselves to one and only one data-plane option the best for everyone going forward? Do we perhaps need to revisit earlier discussions around one/more data plane options before proceeding further? I also believe Ron's point regarding RFC 4291 compliance is something that should be investigated by this WG/6MAN before adoption and not something which should only be considered later. Regards, Daniam ________________________________ From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> Sent: 01 October 2021 16:04 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 This email disclaimer applies to the original email, all attachments and any subsequent emails sent by Liquid Telecom. This email contains valuable business information that is privileged, confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure, intended only for the named person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this email and you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful and/or an infringement of copyright. Please notify us immediately of the error and permanently delete the email from your system, retaining no copies in any media. No employee or agent is authorized to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of Liquid Telecom with another party or give any warranty by email without the express written confirmation by an authorized representative or a director of Liquid Telecom. Nothing in this email shall be construed as a legally binding agreement or warranty or an offer to contract. Liquid Telecom will not be responsible for any damages suffered by the recipient as a result of the recipient not taking cognizance of this principle. Liquid Telecom accepts no liability of whatever nature for any loss, liability, damage or expense resulting directly or indirectly from the access of any files which are attached to this message. Any email addressed to Liquid Telecom shall only be deemed to have been received once receipt is confirmed by Liquid Telecom orally or in writing. An automated acknowledgment of receipt will not suffice as proof of receipt by the Liquid Telecom. This email disclaimer shall be governed by the laws of South Africa.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
