Hi Brian, As you said, >> I'd like hear from the Routing Area ADs.
And you also mentioned the following in [1]: “progressing this draft without advice from the Routing Area that it is needed would be a bit foolish IMHO.” I agree with you. I also said in my email is that “could the CRH authors and proponents finally understand that people are not opposed to new ideas?” Please read the history of the draft: * During IETF106. This is what the draft authors agreed on the mailing list [2]. o “I accept your challenge to produce a document that describes the advantages of SRm6 over SRv6, as well as the differences between SRm6 and SRv6. Expect some operational hoarse-sense as well as some architectural deep-diving.” · No such document was produced. * Instead, in Feb. 2020, authors removed normative reference to SRm6. * Authors positioned CRH as a replacement of RH0 * RH0 replacement was later removed before the adoption call. * There are other competing solutions that are discussed in Spring (and will come to 6man via the “routing area”). Why CRH authors are trying to “skip the queue” and “skip the routing area”? [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/fasaPY3vGhMEmPreUFEJ4j7281o/ [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/Su-5NFpETVGt5beWObmnCP4LoYs/ Thanks Regards … Zafar
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
