If we take a look at the summary table in slide 17 in the DT
presentation at last IETF
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/slides-111-spring-srcomp-design-team-update-00
wecan see that CSID is the only column with *all blocks dark green*.
Thanks
Ahmed
On 10/6/21 9:06 AM, Ron Bonica wrote:
Ahmed,
I don’t recall the DT recommending the CSID. In fact, the word
“recommend” does not appear anywhere in the analysis document.
As a member of the DT, I don’t recommend CSID.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
*From:* spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Ahmed Bashandy
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 5, 2021 10:53 PM
*To:* James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>; SPRING WG
<spring@ietf.org>
*Cc:* spring-cha...@ietf.org
*Subject:* Re: [spring] WG Adoption call for
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/
*[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
I support the adoption of this document.
* The network programming model (RFC8986) defines multiple
behaviors, CSID is just adding the next and replace flavors
* The draft proposes a single SRv6 based data plane that defines
next and replace behaviors. IMO that is consistent with RFC8986
* CSID has been recommended by the design team for SRv6 based
compression
* Interop was done. That is more evidence that CSID is a single data
plane solution
* IMO CSID is ready to become the basis for the SRv6 compression
solution
* Being an SRv6 data plane-based solution, CSID is coherent with the
one data plane solution objective
* CSID meets SRv6 compression requirements as single solution
Thanks
Ahmed
On 10/1/21 7:04 AM, James Guichard wrote:
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://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!UB-06E0vV1hJFKLsWYZym6F3d_lXgEa-0TT6vPXh5GKmmrA9UhFLCWIRgLQM66Td$>
as the basis for its compression standardization work. That is
part of what this email attempts to confirm.
Because of the above the chairs would like to issue a 2-week WG
call for adoption ending October 15^th for
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!UB-06E0vV1hJFKLsWYZym6F3d_lXgEa-0TT6vPXh5GKmmrA9UhFLCWIRgLQM66Td$>
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:
1. "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 <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!UB-06E0vV1hJFKLsWYZym6F3d_lXgEa-0TT6vPXh5GKmmrA9UhFLCWIRgDaeqmAm$>
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
