Hi ALL， After a long-term discussion in the WG, we have reached this point today I support the adoption of CSID draft, which describes an efficient solution of SRv6 compression. I understand the document defines several Flavors, and I think it is just like the normal flavors defined in RFC8986, like PSP, USP, so it makes sense to me. Again, thanks to chairs and design team. Best regards, TIAN
田辉 中国信息通信研究院 010-62300052 tian...@caict.ac.cn 北京市海淀区花园北路52号3G楼B座 > On Oct 1, 2021, at 22:04, 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 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: > > 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
