Hi WG, WG chairs, I support the WG adoption of the draft.
I have been working with SRv6 as part of my PhD. My team focuses on SRv6 implementation in Linux and other open source stacks like VPP, eBPF and others. The CSID draft is compliant with RFC 8986. We read the documents from the design team (DT) and we understand the benefit of the flavours defined in the CSID draft for different deployments. Kind regards, Giulio Sidoretti > On 1 Oct 2021, at 16:04, James Guichard <[email protected]> > 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://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 15thfor > 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: > > The SPRING working group is adopting a document that has multiple SRv6 > Endpoint behaviors. > The document is a “living” document; it may change as it goes through review > and analysis by the SPRING working group. > 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. > 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 > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
