Hi WG, Hi Ketan,
we received some comments about merging the two drafts at the IETF 117th. After
discussion between the authors of the two drafts, we believe that there are
differences between the two drafts. We hope to move forward separately, and
make some distinctions in content and title. T
Speaking as an individual contributor.
I may be misreading this. It looks like the first draft depends upon a
definition of a valid or invalid segment list, but does not provide a
definition for that. It looks like the second draft provides a precise
definition for an invalid segment list.
Hi Joel,
Thanks very much for your comments.
Yes. The first draft does not define a new segment-list invalid rule, and it
still follows the invalid rules of the segment list defined in the SR policy
Architecture (RFC9256) . It only defines a new Candidate invalid rule.
Best Regar
Hmmm. I think what confused me is that I don't see an explicit
reference to the RFC 9256 segment-list invalid rule, only a reference to
the candidate path validity. Seems easily fixed?
Would it make sense for that fix to have text along the lines of "other
segment-list validity criteria may
Hi Joel,
Sure. This is a very good suggestion. Thanks ! II will update it in the next
version.
Best Regards,
Ran
Original
From: JoelHalpern
To: 陈然00080434;
Cc: spring@ietf.org ;ketant.i...@gmail.com
;
Date: 2023年08月31日 09:46
Subject: Re: [spring] Differences betw
