(For clarity: I’m wearing no hats other than “WG contributor”.) As noted in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/5HF4wM5ZDcw5DeL_klXmKf1UP0E/, I’m opposed to adoption until the issue raised there has been addressed. (Repeating the point here to aid in issue tracking.)
Regards, —John > On Oct 1, 2021, at 10:04 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/ > 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/ > 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 > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XRZdfRhOii89II8Mv7l5YKxFHZqsAZ-AstsTtWa3rzgzsl3lqS-NbXMcEh_4oA$ _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
