On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 05:37, wrote:
>
> Fernando,
>
> - Read the mailing list and you will see that everyone do not share your
> opinion. So at least one person is wrong. I think that it would help if
> everyone, including you, could consider that they/you _may_ be wrong, at
> least to better
Hi,
As a newcomer to the IETF, I learned a lot form the latest technical
discussions and process discussions via the mailing lists.Thanks to the mailing
lists and people who propose really good tech considerations.
Well, I agree with Alex, we should focus on the open technical debates, while
From: Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
Sent: Wednesday, 4 March 2020 15:17
To: Andrew Alston ; Martin Vigoureux
; spring@ietf.org
Cc: 6...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Subject: Re: [spring] WGLC - draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming
Andrew,
Inline. PC1.
Regards,
Pab
Hi authors：
Thanks for sharing the SRv6 deployment cases in china;
Can I express my views? From the contents of the section 2 and section 3 in
your draft perspective:
1) Because the design of SRv6 is an incremental deployment over existing
IPv6 network, it will not affect the existing IPv6
> If we argue this behavior as not violating "extension headers cannot be
> removed from a packet until it has arrived at its ultimate destination"
That is not, perhaps unfortunately, what RFC 8200 says.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 05-Mar-20 17:08, Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) wrote:
> Hi Jinmei
Ketan,
See inline [CB].
On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 12:36 AM Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
>
>
> You are right in that there is no assumption that all SRv6 locators in a
> domain are allocated from the same block. Therefore knowing the blocks used
> in the domain is useful.
>
[CB]
Hi all,
We just updated our draft on the SRv6 Deployment Consideration. One of the new
updates in the draft is to add some of the PSP use cases, which is inspired by
the discussions over the mailing list. Your comments on the draft are very
welcomed as well as more PSP use cases. Thank you!
Th
It is not at all unusual for drafts to change AFTER WG consensus has been
reached. The question is whether the changes are within the spirit of what
there is consensus for. So the mere fact that a draft was revised just
before consensus being declared is not in itself evidence of perfidy or a
cause
