Dear WG, I support the adoption of draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression.
Based on my understanding, NEXT and REPLACE flavors defined in this draft can meet with RFC8986. Also, there are multiple implementations today like Arrcus and VPP as well. I really appreciate the huge efforts made by DT team in order to deliver this draft. Thanks, Tetsuya > On Oct 1, 2021, at 7:04 AM, James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> > 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 15th > forhttps://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 > spring@ietf.org <mailto:spring@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
