To close on this topic. There was no reply to the message below. Also, there was no dissenting opinion at the in-person meeting in Montreal.
The conclusion is then that the WG agrees with the opinion below, explicitly that "there is also a need to encompass the dataplane-specific NRP ID being specified in other WGs. The group stressed the need for each proposal to characterize and document operational considerations clearly.” If anyone wants to express a disagreement, please do so by EOD on November 24, 2025. Thanks! Alvaro. On October 28, 2025 at 2:05:58 PM, Alvaro Retana ([email protected]) wrote: Dear WG: On October 14, we held an Interim meeting to discuss how NRPs should be expressed in SRv6 packets. The discussion was intended to be general so that the WG could agree on the approach. The recording is available here: https://youtu.be/TgYeaFUrENs We used these slides as a guide for the discussion: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-interim-2025-spring-03-sessa-how-nrps-should-be-expressed-in-packets-using-sr/ The core of the conversation centered on the comparison presented in slide 4 ("Comparison of the Two Approaches"). After discussion of the pros and cons, the prevailing opinion in the room was that there is also a need to encompass the dataplane-specific NRP ID being specified in other WGs. The group stressed the need for each proposal to characterize and document operational considerations clearly. This message is to request additional opinions to reach WG consensus on the matter. In particular, if anyone objects to the path above, please be explicit about your reasoning. We will have time to discuss any significant concerns at the Montreal meeting next week (on Tuesday, November 4th), and then the chairs will confirm the conclusion on the list afterward. Thank you! spring-chairs
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
